Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Norwich Corporation Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Sheffield) Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Aberdeen Royal Infirmary and Mental Hospital Order Confirmation Bill [Lords,]

Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

STATISTICS.

Mr. ROBINSON: 1.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons at present in receipt of unemployment insurance benefit or transitional payments who have been continuously unemployed for at least six months, and of those how many have been continuously unemployed for at least 12 months?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): At 22nd May, 1933, there were 800,014 applicants for benefit or transitional payments on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain who had been on the registers for six months or more, and, of these, 482,951 had been on the registers for 12 months or more.

Mr. ROBINSON: Can my hon. Friend give the House any information as to the numbers of unemployed who have been out of work for more than 12 months in previous years?

Mr. HUDSON: Yes, Sir. The earliest date for which strictly comparable figures are available for those unemployed for 12 months or more is January, 1932, when
the total was 337,000. There were earlier investigations by sample, which gave results of 45,000 in September, 1929, and 120,000 in February, 1931; and the figure in September, 1931, was probably not less than 300,000.

Mr. ROBINSON: Can my hon. Friend say how that increase in numbers has arisen?

Mr. HUDSON: I think that, when there is a large number of people unemployed, as there is at present, it follows that there must be an increasing number who have been unemployed for 12 months, and no doubt the present figures are largely the result of the slump started while hon. Members opposite were in office.

Mr. LANSBURY: It has continued after two years of this Government.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by saying that the figure "probably was" a certain figure at a certain period? Has he anything to substantiate that?

Mr. HUDSON: The actual figures were counted, starting from January, 1932. Sample analyses were made for various purposes previously, and the figures I have given are the results of those sample analyses.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. Gentleman gives a figure for 1931, and says that the figure probably was, at a later date, some other figure. On what does he base that "probably"? Is it a mere piece of guesswork on his part?

Mr. HUDSON: It is the best estimate that can be made as the result of the sample figures.

Mr. LAWSON: As the ministerial delegate at the time to the International Conference, I used these figures for February, 1931. On what ground does the hon. Gentleman say, when the figure which I officially gave, as representing the Ministry of Labour, was 120,000, that there were probably 300,000?

Mr. HUDSON: I said that the figure based on a sample inquiry was 45,000 in September, 1929, and another inquiry was made in February, 1931, which gave a figure of 120,000. The figure is 120,000 for February, 1931. The best estimate
that we can make is that the figure had risen, by September of that year, to 300,000.

Mr. LAWSON: On what ground does the hon. Gentleman make a statement like that?

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Rhys Davies.

INSURANCE (FISHING INDUSTRY).

Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: 6.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can make any statement on the question of the application of unemployment insurance to fishermen; and what changes are contemplated.

Mr. HUDSON: My right hon. Friend cannot make any statement in advance of the introduction of the Bill.

Mr. STEWART: Can the hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that, in considering this matter, full opportunity will be given to the representatives of the herring fishing industry to state their case?

Mr. HUDSON: I shall be very glad to discuss the matter with my hon. Friend if he cares to come and see me.

RUSSIAN ORGANISATIONS (DISMISSED EMPLOYES).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 8.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that 200 employés have been dismissed from Russian Oil Products, Limited, and 120 employés from other Soviet institutions in London owing to the embargo on Russian goods; and how many of these are drawing unemployment benefit, and, if possible, the weekly amount paid to them?

Mr. HUDSON: No, Sir; but I have no doubt that, if there are any such persons who are unemployed and qualified for benefit, they are drawing it.

Mr. GEOFFREY PETO: Will my hon. Friend assure us that those who are not British subjects, but Russians, will be returned to Russia?

Mr. DAVIES: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that practically all these persons are British subjects and that they are unemployed; and it is apparent from his reply that they are not getting benefit?

Mr. HUDSON: I said that if they are qualified for benefit I have no doubt they are drawing it.

BENEFIT PAYMENT, SHREWSBURY.

Mr. DUCKWORTH: 10.
asked the Minister of Labour if he can state the circumstances under which the necessary funds for the payment of benefit at the Shrewsbury Employment Exchange on 2nd June were not available and 50 unemployed men did not receive the benefit to which they were entitled until the following week; and whether he will take steps to ensure that the necessary funds are made available in future?

Mr. HUDSON: I regret that, owing to an error in calculating the total amount of money that would be required, it was not possible to pay on the 2nd June a small number of men who attended for payment in the evening after having been at work on that day. The position was explained to them, and it was understood that they were all content to wait until the following week for their money. It was made clear that in any case of hardship special arrangements would be made for payment on the 3rd June, but no request for such payment was made.

Mr. DUCKWORTH: In view of the undoubted hardship that was inflicted on a certain number of men, may I ask if it would not have been possible for the manager of the exchange to obtain a loan to make the necessary payments?

Mr. HUDSON: No doubt it would Rave been if the men had been coming for payment during the ordinary business hours, but, as they were being specially paid in the evening, because they had been at work the whole day, it was impossible, at the particular hour at which the mistake was found out, to rectify it by the means suggested by my hon. Friend.

HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS.

Mr. PARKINSON: 18.
asked the Minister of Health if he has considered the resolution submitted by the insurance committee for the borough of Wigan, calling his attention to the number of unemployed persons who will lapse from insurance and be disentitled to medical benefit at the end of December, 1933; if so, will he state the nature of his reply; and whether he proposes to take any
action by which persons who have been continuously unemployed will retain insurance and medical benefits?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): I have received and acknowledged the communication to which the hon. Member refers. As regards the last part of the question, I cannot add anything to my reply of 9th March to the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. Leckie), and other previous replies on the subject of persons who will lapse from insurance at the end of this year.

COAL INDUSTRY (WORK SHARING SCHEME, BLAENAVON).

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 42.
asked the Secretary for Mines if his attention has been called to the decision of the miners at Blaenavon, who have decided to adopt the scheme of sharing the work although it involves financial sacrifice on the part of the miners in that locality who are and have been employed for some time; whether he proposes to take any action to encourage miners in other parts of the country to follow the example of the Blaenavon miners and adopt the scheme, which is intended to help those who have been unemployed to retain their craft ability and prevent the results of continued unemployment?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): The answer to the first part of the question is "Yes." With regard to the second part, I am following with great interest and sympathy the development of the scheme at Blaenavon, and also of somewhat similar schemes already in operation in other parts of the country. I feel the greatest admiration for those who are deliberately giving up a considerable part of their employment that others may share, but I do not think that there is any specific action at the moment which I can, or should, take, since the matter is one for agreement between employers and employed.

EXCHANGE FACILITIES, MIDDLESEX.

Mr. RUTHERFORD: 4.
asked the Minister of Labour how many urban district council areas in Middlesex have not got separate Employment Exchanges?

Mr. HUDSON: Out of 23 urban district council areas in Middlesex, there are 11 in which the necessary Employment Exchange facilities are provided in neighbouring areas.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHOPS ACT (PROSECUTION, CLERKENWELL).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 3.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the recent case at the Clerkenwell Police Court of a prosecution under the Shops Act, when a restaurant proprietress was fined the sum of 22s. 6d. for employing three youths for 109 hours each in a week; and, if so, whether he intends taking any steps to introduce trade board regulations to prevent these conditions recurring?

Mr. HUDSON: My right hon. Friend's attention has not been called to this case. With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the replies to previous questions on the subject of the application of the Trade Boards Acts to the catering trade, and particularly to the reply given on the 11th February, 1932, of which I am sending him a further copy.

Mr. DAVIES: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to verify the fact that the proprietress of a restaurant employed three young lads for 109 hours each per week, and that the magistrates thought it fit that a fine of only 22s. 6d. should be imposed? Are the Government satisfied with that state of affairs?

Mr. HUDSON: Any question on the subject of prosecution should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 5.
asked the Minister of Labour what is the estimated cost of Great Britain's contributions to the International Labour Office; and whether he will consider the desirability of issuing a report as to the value of the work achieved so far as it affects this country?

Mr. HUDSON: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Dorset, East (Mr. Hall-Caine) on the 18th May.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOTTERIES AND BETTING.

Mr. LEVY: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Government has yet been able to study the Report of the Lotteries omission;
and whether he proposes to introduce a Bill embodying any of the Commission's proposals?

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: 13.
asked the Home Secretary if the Government intend to introduce legislation dealing with any of the questions arising from the Report of the Royal Commission on Lotteries and Betting?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Douglas Hacking): As the House will appreciate, there has not yet been time for His Majesty's Government, in view of their many preoccupations, to give careful study and attention to the Report of the Royal Commission. Moreover, in view of the congested state of public business, my right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot give any undertaking that it will be possible to introduce legislation in the near future to deal with any part of the wide field covered by the recommendations of the Commission.

Mr. LEVY: Can my right hon. Friend give some indication as to when legislation may be introduced; and does he think it will be before the end of this year?

Mr. FOOT: Will the Government have regard to the fact that the Commission were asked to expedite their inquiry in view of the chaotic condition of things; and will the matter be regarded as one of extreme urgency, in view of the fact that it is so regarded throughout the country?

Viscountess ASTOR: Does not the Under-Secretary think that, having appointed a Royal Commission and got expert advice, he ought to act on it, and not wait for the opposition against it to get organised and make it almost impossible to act?

Mr. HACKING: I do not care to deal with tactics in my reply. With regard to the approximate date when this matter will be introduced in the form of legislation, it is really impossible to say until the Government have had the opportunity of going closely into the report, which is a very interesting report, and worthy of very serious consideration. I do not suppose, myself, that it will be possible to introduce legislation during the present Session.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, with respect to Irish sweepstakes alone, any delay in introducing legislation would cause a loss to the country of £5,000,000 a year?

Oral Answers to Questions — DSTURBANCES, LONDON.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 12.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the growing frequency of street brawling of a political nature in the West End of London on Sunday nights; and, if so, whether he can state to what extent the wearing of political uniforms by the participants is the cause of this?

Mr. HACKING: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that during the last six months disturbances of a political character in the West End of London have occurred on only three occasions, the last being on the 14th May. I have obtained full reports of these disturbances and I am satisfied that the accounts of them which appeared in certain sections of the Press were highly coloured and exaggerated almost beyond recognition. In reply to the last part of the question, I am informed that the disturbances were due, not so much to the wearing of distinctive uniforms, as to the sale in the streets, by the aid of placards, of publications to which exception was taken.

Mr. DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of suppressing all these organisations that are wearing uniforms and parading the streets?

Mr. HACKING: It may not always be desirable to prevent the wearing of uniforms. The wearing of uniform alone helps the police to find people guilty of any offence.

Viscountess ASTOR: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that all this could be obviated if the Labour party did not hold political meetings on the Sabbath?

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION (SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION, PORTSMOUTH).

Mr. RALPH BEAUMONT: 15.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he has considered
a communication from the Portsmouth Education Committee asking for sanction to erect new school accommodation in the Westover Road area; and, if so, what reply has been sent?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): The Board of Education have received a communication from the Portsmouth Education Committee asking for sanction to erect new school accommodation in the Westover Road area, and have informed them that they will be prepared to consider their proposals.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

BUILDINO SOCIETIES (ADVANCES).

Mr. ROBINSON: 16.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will arrange for building societies to make monthly returns of the sums of money advanced by them in respect of house building under the provisions of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1933?

Sir H. YOUNG: I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the circular issued on the passing of this Act, from which he will see that I am arranging to obtain returns of progress from the local authorities which will show the amounts of the advances made by building societies under the Act.

STATISTICS.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 21.
asked the Minister of Health how many local authorities have made application for permission to build houses during each of the five months this year; how many schemes were sanctioned; and how many houses were involved?

Sir H. YOUNG: Specific answers cannot be satisfactorily given to the three parts of the question as decisions on many of the applications are still pending. The numbers of houses approved for erection by local authorities in England and Wales during each of the first five months of this year were 3,423, 4,001, 4,584, 2,515, and 3,304, respectively.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Does this refer to new houses to be erected by persons other than local authorities?

Sir H. YOUNG: I am dealing here with local authorities who have made application for permission to build. It is local authorities' houses.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 17.
(for Mr. MITCHESON) asked the Minister of Health the total number of houses built in the six months ended 31st March, 1933, and, for comparison, the corresponding total for the six months ended 31st March, 1932?

Sir H. YOUNG: The total number of houses of a rateable value not exceeding £78 (or £105 in the metropolitan area) completed in England and Wales during the six months ended 31st March, 1933, was 104,981. The corresponding total for the six months ended 31st March, 1932, was 106,461.

Oral Answers to Questions — MENTAL TREATMENT.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 19 and 20.
asked the Minister of Health (1) if he is aware that in the report of the Board of Control for the year 1931 it is estimated that the cost of each inmate of a mental hospital amounts to £500 per annum, or a total for the country of £70,000,000 per annum; and will he consider, in the interests of economy, accommodating inmates, for whom detention cannot be proved to be necessary, in hostels run on a hospital footing under the control and inspection of the Ministry itself;
(2) what proportion of the £70,000,000 which is estimated by the Board of Control to be spent on the detention of 140,000 inmates is borne by local authorities and how much is derived from Government grants to asylums and asylum annexes?

Sir H. YOUNG: I think that these questions are based on a misunderstanding of the report of the Board of Control for 1931, which appears in a pamphlet on the Mental Treatment Act recently circulated to Members. It will be seen by reference to the report itself (page 85) that the figure of £500 is not a figure of annual cost but is the Board's estimate of the capital cost of providing a bed in a mental hospital. The annual cost of upkeep of the public mental hospitals and maintenance, supervision and treatment of patients was not 70 millions in 1931, but was approximately eight millions, which was defrayed from rate funds. In 1932 this figure was slightly reduced though the number of patients under care increased by about 1,900. The alternative method suggested is, I fear, impracticable. The preventive treatment of such
cases needs resources of staff and equipment unobtainable in hostels, under whatever central system of control they may be placed.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES (WAR DEBTS).

Mr. BROCKLEBANK: 23.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what Governments owed money on account of war debts to the United States of America payable during the first half of the current year; the full amounts of such moneys which were due to be paid; and the amounts actually paid?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I am arranging for a statement containing the desired information to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:


Country.

Full amount.
Amount paid (a).




$
$


Great Britain
…
75,950,000
10,000,000


Italy
…
13,545,437.5
1,000,000


Czechoslovakia
…
1,500,000
180,000


Finland
…
148,592.5
148,592.5


Latvia
…
119,609
6,000


Rumania.
…
1,000,000
(b)


France
…
40,738,567.5
—


Belgium
…
6,325,000
—


Poland
…
2,953,562.5
—


Estonia
…
228,182.5
—


Hungary
…
32,025
—


Lithuania
…
123,535
—


Yugoslavia
…
275,000
—


Greece
…
130,000 (c)
—


(a) Payments by Great Britain, Italy and Finland were made in silver. It is not known in what form other payments were made.


(b) It is understood that Rumania will pay $25,000.


(c) Amount due 1st January, 1933. The Greek Debt instalments are payable on 1st Jauuary and 1st July, the amount due on 1st July, 1933, being $150,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — MONETARY POLICY.

Mr. DAVID MASON: 22.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether His Majesty's Government intend to introduce during the present Session of Parliament any Measure or Measures carrying out their views on monetary policy, as recently declared at the Monetary and Economic Conference?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am not in a position to reply without knowing what decisions the conference will reach.

Mr. MASON: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that, if the Government took action to bring about the restoration of the £ and the resumption of foreign lending, it would tend to encourage other countries to follow our example?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of opinion.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN INTERNATIONAL 5½ PER CENT LOAN.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 24.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the obligation of His Majesty's Government to British subjects who invested in the London Tranche of the German 5½ per cent. Young Loan on the understanding that the proceeds would be received by the British Exchequer; will he make a formal request to the German Government to honour its pledge to pay interest and sinking fund or, alternatively, will he arrange for the British Exchequer to assume responsibility for the interest and sinking fund, in accordance with the flotation terms of the London issue of the loan?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The German Government International 5½ Per Cent. Loan, 1930, is an unconditional liability of the German Government and His Majesty's Government have no financial liability for it. The question whether any formal representations should be made to the German Government on the matter will require to be considered when the intentions of the German authorities have been further elucidated.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Does my hon. Friend say that the Government are under no moral obligations in the matter? Has he forgotten that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Snowden as he then was, told the House that the whole of this money was going to the British Exchequer and issued a White Paper to that effect?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: That is quite a different matter. That refers to the proceeds of the loans. The question refers to interest.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: The question refers to the obligation of the Government?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I answered that by saying the Treasury has no obligation?

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIA (LOAN).

Mr. MANDER: 25.
asked the Chan cellor of the Exchequer whether arrangements have now been made to float the Austrian loan?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The arrangements are at present under discussion between the principal Governments concerned.

Mr. MANDER: Can the hon. Gentleman give any indication when the loan is likely to be floated, or when the discussions will end?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, Sir.

Mir. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Can my hon. Friend assure the House that there is not likely to be any new loan or guarantee to Austria?

Oral Answers to Questions — SUGAR-BEET INDUSTRY.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 26.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any arrangements are being made for an inquiry into the sugar-beet industry during the current year?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave on 16th March to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), of which I am sending him a copy.

Viscountess ASTOR: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that that was a most unsatisfactory answer, and would the Government consider taking away the subsidy and giving it to open air nursery schools in devastated areas?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

PROCESSED MILK (IMPORTS).

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: 28.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what agreement has been reached between the Dominions Governments and his Department in regard to the imports into this country
of processed milk; if the National Union of Farmers have been consulted upon these arrangements: and with what results?

Captain Sir GEORGE BOWYER: I have been asked to reply. In regard to the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend-to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Devizes (Sir P. Hurd) on Monday last, of which I am sending him a copy. In regard to the last part of the question, the National Farmers' Union were aware and approved of my right hon. Friend's intention to make the best arrangements possible in the circumstances.

Sir W. SUGDEN: 29.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if arrangements have yet been made between his Department and the Netherlands Government to reduce imports of processed milk from the Netherlands into this country or between his Department and Netherlands traders; if similar arrangements are being or have been made with other countries; and, if so, which and upon what conditions?

Sir G. BOWYER: The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative, the arrangements having been made in each case through representatives of the Governments of the foreign countries concerned, namely, the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, the United States, Germany, Switzerland, and France. For the nature of the arrangements, I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend on 29th May, of which I am sending him a copy.

BUTTER PRICES.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 30.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will state the wholesale price of butter from New Zealand, Australia, and Denmark at the date of the passing of the Ottawa Agreements and at the present time, and the price of English butter on the same date?

Sir G. BOWYER: In the week ended 16th November, 1932, the average wholesale prices of first quality butter were as follows:—New Zealand (salted) 105s. per cwt., Australian (salted) 97s., Danish 126s., and British 154s. The 1933 prices for the week ended 14th June were, New Zealand 88s., Australian 86s., Danish 96s., and British 112s.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: In the case of New Zealand and Australia, were they shillings of those countries' currency or English?

Sir G. BOWYER: I could not say without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — DRAINAGE SCHEMES.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 31.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many catchment boards have submitted major schemes for draining their areas since June, 1932; how many schemes were approved; and how much financial assistance was granted by the Treasury?

Sir G. BOWYER: Five catchment boards have submitted schemes for grant under Section 55 of the Land Drainage Act, 1930, since June, 1932. One such scheme, estimated to cost £163,393, has been approved for a grant of 62 per cent. of the loan charges for a period of 30 years, and one is under consideration. I may remind the hon. Member that catchment boards are not required to submit schemes of work to the Ministry, unless they are making application for a Government grant.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Do we understand that in each of the five cases the catchment boards have actually made application?

Sir G. BOWYER: Yes, actually one has been approved and the others are under consideration. The one approved is the Rother scheme near Rye.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUEZ CANAL COMPANY.

Sir PARK GOFF: 32.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether the board of the Suez Canal Company has, during the period 1929–33, increased its purchases of British cement as compared with the period 1924–29?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The answer is in the affirmative.

Mr. BURNETT: 48.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British official directors on the board of the Suez Canal Company have informed their French colleagues on the board of the dissatisfaction felt by British firms about the terms and methods by which
the Suez Canal Company calls for tenders for the supply of material; and, if so, will he state whether the efforts of the British official directors have succeeded in removing the difficulties complained of and, if such is not the case, will he say what explanation has been given by the three official British directors?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): Neither the Foreign Office nor the Department of Overseas Trade has received any complaints on this subject during the last year or two. I am, moreover, informed that no British firm has complained within recent years to the official directors that it has been debarred from tendering for material required by the Suez Canal Company. If my hon. Friend will let me have details of any particular complaints which he has in mind I will see that they are investigated.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

HERRING FISHING (SUNDAYS).

Mr. H. STEWART: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes to take in the matter of the application addressed to him by Scottish fishermen to the effect that fishing for herrings on Sundays should be made illegal?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): The application referred to was addressed to the Fishery Board for Scotland a few weeks ago, and I am informed that the Board has not yet reached a conclusion on the subject. But my hon. Friend is no doubt aware that legislation would be necessary to give effect to the fishermen's proposal.

Mr. HARBORD: Will the Minister, before taking action, consult with the East Coast where there is strong opposition to the proposal?

Mr. SKELTON: Before action is taken the question will be viewed in its widest possible aspects.

Mr. STEWART: Will he also bear in mind that, despite the reported indiscretions of the Opposition on the Lord's Day, in the East of Scotland the Sabbath is observed as a day of rest?

RING-NET FISHING (FIRTH OF FORTH).

Mr. H. STEWART: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps it is proposed to take in view of the petitions addressed to the Fishery Board with regard to ring-net fishing in the Firth of Forth?

Mr. SKELTON: This matter has been raised from time to time during recent years, and the position is that hitherto the Fishery Board have not been satisfied that there is sufficient ground for restricting ring-net fishing in the Firth of Forth. The question is, however, being further examined by the Board in the light of recent representations from the Scottish Herring Producers' Association.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

TRAFFIC NOISES.

Sir CHARLES OMAN: 35.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the loss of sleep and the injury to health caused by loud motor noises at night, he will issue a regulation prohibiting the use of horns and other noisy instruments by motorists in residential thoroughfares during the midnight hours except in cases of emergency?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): This question has been considered from time to time but the Minister regrets that he cannot see his way to make a regulation such as my hon. Friend suggests. Apart from the difficulty of deciding what is a residential area and what is an emergency, the Minister is not satisfied that such a regulation would be in the interests of public safety. The installation of light control signals has, I think, had an appreciable effect in reducing noise from the use of motor horns at cross roads.

ACCIDENTS, LAYTON.

Sir W. SUGDEN: 37.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the number of fatal and other accidents taking place in the borough of Leyton, Essex; and what steps he is taking to alter some of the roads whereon some of these fatal and other accidents have recently occurred?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: In December last my hon. Friend's attention was drawn to a fatal accident in the Borough
of Leyton, alleged to be due to the slippery condition of the road surface, and immediate steps were taken to have the surface treated with non-skid dressing. My hon. Friend is not aware of any other recent accidents in the borough attributed to dangerous road conditions.

Sir W. SUGDEN: If I bring to the attention of my hon. and gallant Friend three cases of fatal and other accidents, will he get into touch with the railway companies concerned and the county council, together with his own Department, in order to arrange some sort of settlement whereby the roads may be made safe for men, women and children?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be prepared to discuss the matter with the hon. Gentleman.

ROAD MATERIALS.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: 36.
(for Captain SOTHERON - ESTCOURT) asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the increased imports of foreign setts and kerb during recent months, he will consider the advisability of taking fresh steps to urge upon local authorities the necessity of using British setts and kerb in all their road-making operations?

Mr. WOMERSLEY (Lord of the Treasury): My hon. Friend is aware that there has been an increase in the importation of foreign setts and kerbs during the last three months. He has no reason to suppose, however, that the increase is due to the use of foreign materials for grant-aided schemes, and it may be accounted for in some measure by seasonal fluctuations in the volume of road works put in hand. It is not thought necessary to address a further communication to local authorities in view of the Circular already sent to them, a copy of which is being sent to my hon. and gallant Friend setting out the conditions attached to all grants from the Road Fund towards the cost of works.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Member ask the Minister to look into this matter rather more closely to see whether there is any unnecessary increase in the use of foreign materials?

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I will certainly put that request before my right hon. Friend and also inform him of the hon. Member who desires to get the information.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (DR. ARLOSOROFF).

Mr. DENMAN: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information he can give the House relating to the murder of Dr. Arlosoroff in Palestine?

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I have been asked to reply. On the 17th of June the High Commissioner for Palestine informed my right hon. Friend with deep regret that at about 10.30 p.m. on the previous night Dr. Arlosoroff, while walking with his wife at the north end of Tel Aviv beach, was accosted by two unknown persons and shot twice by one of them who was armed with a revolver. Dr. Arlosoroff died some hours later in Tel Aviv hospital. A very close description of the assailant and his companion was circulated on the morning of the 17th of June with an offer of a Government reward of £500 and a reward of £1,000 from the Jewish Agency. On the 19th of June the police arrested Abraham Stawski, a Polish citizen who arrived in Palestine in March from Poland. He was identified by Mrs. Arlosoroff as resembling the companion of the man who fired the shot which killed Dr. Arlosoroff. He was brought before a magistrate on the morning of the 21st of June, when the police asked for and obtained a remand for 15 days. The defence puts forward an alibi.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE (FOREIGN VISITORS).

Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: 41.
asked the Postmaster-General whether the London Telephone Exchange contains an inquiry bureau capable of answering questions addressed to it in European languages; and, if not, whether he will consider the advisability of establishing such a bureau for the convenience of continental visitors in London?

The POSTMASTER - GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): There is an interpreter on duty at the Chief Post Office, King Edward Street, E.C.I, by whom inquiries made in person by continental visitors are dealt with. Persons making inquiries by telephone would be put through to foreign-speaking staff at the main trunk exchange if they could not be dealt with at the local exchange. The arrangements in force would appear to meet all reasonable requirements.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether they can answer questions addressed to them in ordinary English?

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA (TAXATION).

Mr. G. PETO: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will communicate to the House the detailed recommendations for taxation in Kenya which have been accepted instead of income tax?

Mr. WOMRERSLEY: The report of the Alternative Revenue Proposals Committee was published locally. A summary of the proposals which are being adopted appears in the dispatch of my right hon. Friend to the Governor of 7th June, which was circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT on the 14th of June. My right hon. Friend is arranging for a copy of the Committee's report, including a later addendum, to be placed in the Library of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (OFFICERS' SEA PASSAGES).

Mr. RANKIN: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether special pains are taken by his Department to ensure that civil servants in India whose passages are paid by the State travel solely by British ships?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): The reply to my hon. Friend's inquiry is in the affirmative in cases where passages are directly paid by the State. As regards passages 'under the Lee Commission's scheme, I have nothing to add to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) on 23rd November, 1931, of which I am sending a copy to my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

SWEDEK,

Mr. BERNAYS: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether an opportunity will be given to this House to debate the trade agreement with Sweden?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Margesson): If it is desired to debate this agreement, an opportunity will no doubt occur in the normal course of business.

RUSSIAN GOODS (IMPORT PROHIBITION).

Mr. MANDER: 46.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present position with regard to the embargo on Russian imports; and whether any negotiations are proceeding on the subject?

Mr. EDEN: As regards the embargo I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Sir M. Wood) on the 29th May last, since when the position has not changed; the answer to the second part of the question is "No, Sir."

Mr. MANDER: Am I to understand from the reply that no conversations of any kind have taken place between the responsible authorities in the two countries on the subject?

Mr. EDEN: My hon. Friend must understand the answer, which is, "No, Sir."

Viscountess ASTOR: If the embargo against Russia is bad for our industries, does not the hon. Gentleman think that it is time that the Government came off the high horse and did something about it?

Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: Will my hon. Friend make inquiries to see what effect the embargo is having on the herring fishing industry of Scotland at the present time?

Mr. EDEN: The policy of the Government on this question was very fully stated to the House, and I have nothing whatever to add.

Sir M. WOOD: May I ask if the Foreign Office has made itself conversant with the results of the policy upon an important industry in Scotland at the present time?

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (JEWS).

Mr. MANDER: 47.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any recent reports with regard to the treatment of Jews in Germany?

Mr. EDEN: I have nothing to add to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to a similar question asked by my Eon. Friend on the 26th April.

Mr. MANDER: Have the Government any reason to think that the Jews are
being treated any more leniently now, and has there been any improvement in the situation, or does the persecution still continue in the same manner?

Mr. JANNER: May I ask whether the Under-Secretary of State has received any report of the position in Upper Silesia?

Mr. EDEN: That is a question of detail, and perhaps the hon. Member will put it down?

Oral Answers to Questions — COST OF LIVING.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 2.
(for Mr. MITCHESON) asked the Minister of Labour whether he proposes to consider the revision at an early date of the basis upon which the cost-of-living index number is calculated?

Mr. HUDSON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 30th March last to the hon. and gallant Member for Bethnal Green, North East (Major Nathan).

Oral Answers to Questions — BUILDING SOCIETY DIVIDENDS (INCOME TAX).

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: 27.
(for Mr. McENTEE) asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he has any information as to the amount of money invested in building societies of which the dividends are free of Income Tax and the number of holdings less than £500?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The only official information available regarding investment in building societies is that published by the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies in his annual reports, and I would refer the hon. Member in particular to the report of the 4th May, 1933, Part 5 Building Societies, Section II, General Summary.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY (OFFICERS' RETIRED PAY).

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: 43.
(for Mr. McENTEE) asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether any officer retired from His Majesty's Forces is entitled to receive the benefits of warrants in force at date of enlistment; whether ranker officers retired with the rank of major are prevented from counting for
pension colour service under the age of 18; and, if so, at what date has any alteration been made?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): Any officer serving on the active list of the Army under a permanent regular commission at the time of an amendment to the pay warrant has the right on retirement to the rates in force on the day before the date of the amendment in accordance with the substantive rank he held on that day. With effect from 1st June, 1924, the pay warrant was amended to provide that service in the ranks under the age of 18 should not reckon as service for retired pay. A ranker officer can only reckon such service for retired pay in the rank of major if he was promoted to that-rank before 1st June, 1924.

Oral Answers to Questions — WINSON GREEN PRISON (DEATH).

Brigadier-General SPEARS: (by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of Thomas Parker, who died in Winson Green Prison whilst serving a, sentence of 14 days' imprisonment for sleeping out; if inquiry has been made into the question whether this man suffered from claustrophobia; whether he will issue a circular recommending that persons so afflicted should not be condemned to solitary confinement; and why Thomas Parker was not medically examined after the fall which caused his death, before he was locked up in the solitary cell?

Mr. HACKING: The circumstances in which this prisoner came by his death were fully investigated at an inquest held by the Birmingham City Coroner on the 13th and 14th instant, when a verdict of accidental death was returned. The prisoner was seen by the medical officer on his admission to prison and again on the morning when he was charged with insubordinate conduct in the exercise yard, and there appears to be no ground for thinking that he was suffering from claustrophobia. The prison medical officers are well acquainted with this particular condition, and special arrangements are made for the treatment of prisoners who on medical grounds are unfit for the ordinary prison routine. The prison rules provide that no prisoner shall be placed
in close confinement unless the medical officer has certified that he is fit to undergo such punishment, and, in accordance with this provision the prisoner had been seen by the medical officer on the morning in question and certified as fit for dietary punishment and close confinement. The prison rules also require the medical officer to visit once a day every prisoner who is under punishment, and this prisoner would in due course have been visited by the medical officer; but, as appears from the evidence at the inquest, the officers who took him to the cell did not recognise that he had sustained serious injury. I would take this opportunity of expressing on behalf of the Secretary of State and the prison authorities sincere sympathy with the prisoner's relatives in respect of this sad accident.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: May I in the first place ask my hon. Friend whether he thinks it right that a man should be given 14 days' imprisonment for sleeping out? In the second place, I gather from his answer that the prison authorities declare, and have so informed him, that this man did not suffer from claustrophobia. Is my hon. Friend aware that there appears in the public Press a report to the effect that the prison doctor gave it as his opinion that this man was suffering from claustrophobia; and is it not inflicting torture to put into a cell a man who is suffering from such a complaint? Furthermore, is it permissible that a man who has sustained a fall of the nature described at the inquest should have been thrown into a cell and not examined medically until he was found to be dead in his cell subsequently?

Mr. HACKING: The hon. and gallant Member has asked me three questions. First, whether it was right that the man should be sent to prison for 14 days? That is no concern of the Home Office; that is a question of justice. In regard to whether the man was suffering from claustrophobia, the medical officer of the prison, who knows this complaint and is very familiar with it, decided that he was not suffering from that complaint, and, moreover, I would point out that the man created a disturbance by shouting when he was in the open air at exercise, in addition to any disturbance he might have made in the cell, which rather went to show that he was not suffering from that complaint. The final question put to me
was in connection with his fall. The prison officers who conducted this man to his cell were brushed aside and the man stumbled and tell downstairs. It was not considered by the officers that he had damaged himself; there was no mark that they could see when they placed him in the cell. Naturally, he would have been examined shortly after he entered the cell by the medical officer. Shortly after he entered the cell, about 10 minutes, he was seen to be in a curious position. The door was unlocked, and the man was found to be dead.

Mr. LAWSON: Is the hon. Gentleman's Department making any attempt to investigate these cases in which men are being sent to prison for sleeping out in view of this very bad piece of bungling?

Mr. HACKING: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's statement that there has been a bad piece of bungling.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISTRESSED AREAS (GOVERNMENT GRANT).

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Health whether any decision has been reached on the question of some temporary assistance to distressed areas pending the coming into force of the Government's arrangements in regard to the able-bodied unemployed.

Sir H. YOUNG: Yes, Sir. The suggested scheme of temporary assistance which I outlined to the House on 12th April last, has formed the subject of discussion with representatives of the London County Council and the principal associations of local authorities. The local authorities, while not questioning the case for some assistance to the latter areas, took exception to the principle of contribution, even indirectly and on a temporary basis, by the more prosperous to the less prosperous areas. The resulting position has been considered by the Government, and they have decided to submit to the House in due course a Supplementary Estimate for a grant of £500,000 for the assistance, during the present year, of distressed areas in England and Wales, and in Scotland.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Would the sum which the Minister has just named be equivalent to the halfpenny rate which it was suggested should be contributed by
the more prosperous areas; and, in view of the fact that the authorities in the more prosperous areas have not seen their way to accept that suggestion, would he say what this amount would be equivalent to in those terms?

Sir H. YOUNG: As to the equivalence of the sum of £500,000 to this or to that other suggestion, I think that is a matter for argument which can best be dealt with when I introduce the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. LOGAN: Is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman now to bring in a Bill for the equalisation of rates, in view of the nature of the reply?

Sir H. YOUNG: That is another question and raises a large matter of principle.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay a White Paper on the Table giving us particulars of the amount of money which he asked the opulent areas to provide and a comparison with the proposal which the Government are now making; and will he also tell us when it is proposed to bring in the Supplementary Estimate?

Sir H. YOUNG: I will certainly give full consideration to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. It does not appear to me at first sight that there is much to explain, but I will certainly see whether there is anything in relation to it which can be usefully conveyed to the House in the form of a White Paper. As to the date of the introduction of the Supplementary Estimate, that is a question which ought to be put to the Leader of the House.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman, between now and the time when he is to receive a deputation later this afternoon, satisfy himself as to whether the amount he has named will be equivalent to the proceeds of the proposed halfpenny rate?

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how he defines the opulent areas?

Mr. DICKIE: Is it the considered judgment of the Government, in view of the enormous distress which exists and which Members representing distressed areas have brought to the notice of the House repeatedly during the last 12 months, that £500,000 is an adequate sum?

Sir H. YOUNG: Yes, Sir, certainly, I think I will be able to satisfy the House on that point.

Mr. BATEY: Are we to understand that the Supplementary Estimate is only for the current year, and that the Minister then proposes to bring in permanent legislation to deal with this question, apart from the Unemployment Insurance legislation?

Sir H. YOUNG: If the Bon. Member considers the terms of my answer, he will see that it refers to a scheme of temporary assistance for the current year only.

Mr. BATEY: Are we then to understand that there is to be no provision for next year?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury what Business it is proposed to take next week?

Captain MARGESSON: Monday: Report and Third Reading of the Metropolitan Police Bill and further consideration of the Local Government and other Officers Superannuation (Temporary Provisions) Bill.
Tuesday: Second Reading of the Sea-Fishing Industry Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution; and remaining stages of the Education (Necessity of Schools) Bill which has come from another place.
Wednesday: Supply, Committee, ninth Allotted Day. I understand that the Opposition have asked for the Board of Trade Vote.
Thursday: Supply, Committee, tenth Allotted Day; Department of Mines Vote.
Friday: Supply, Committee, Second part of the sixth Allotted Day; Votes for Police, England and Wales, and Prisons, England and Wales.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders may be taken.

BILLS REPORTED.

EDUCATION (NECESSITY OF SCHOOLS) BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Monday next.

MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL.

CALVINISTIC METHODIST OR PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF WALES BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

CIVIL ESTIMATES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1933).

Estimate presented,—of a. further Sum required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1934, [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.

MESSAGE PROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Jesus Hospital in Chipping Barnet Charity Bill, without Amendment.

London Midland and Scottish Railway Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to abolish grand juries and amend the law as to the presentment of indictments; to provide for the summary determination of questions as to liability for death duties; to make provision for alternative procedure for the recovery of Crown debts and to enable proceedings by the Crown to be instituted in county courts in appropriate cases; to amend the procedure as to certain prerogative writs and as to trials by jury in the High Court; to amend the law as to the payment of costs by and to the Crown; to provide for the further delegation of the jurisdiction of the Master in Lunacy; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid."[Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [Lords]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Wrexham and East Denbighshire Water Company."[Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Wrexham and East Denbighshire Water) Bill [Lords].

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Luton Water Company." [Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Luton Water) Bill [Lords].

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to the boroughs of Maidstone and Stockton-on-Tees." [Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Maidstone and Stockton-on-Tees) Bill [Lords]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the city of Salford to execute street works and to acquire lands for those and other purposes; to confer powers upon them of running trolley vehicles; to make various provisions and to confer various powers with respect to the several undertakings of the Corporation, and in regard to the health and finance, and for the good government of the city; and for other purposes." [Salford Corporation Bill [Lords].

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (WREXHAM AND EAST DENBIGHSHIRE WATER) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 124.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LUTON WATER) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 125.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (MAIDSTONE AND STOOKTON-ON-TEES) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 126.]

SALFORD CORPORATION BILL [Lords].

Read the First time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[8TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1933.

CLASS V.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FOR SCOTLAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £1,682,265, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Health for Scotland; including Grants and other Expenses in connection with Housing, certain Grants to Local Authorities, etc., Grant in Aid of the Highlands and Islands Medical Service, Grants in Aid of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Health Insurance Acts; certain Expenses in connection with the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts, and other Services."—[Note. —£1,150,000 has been voted on account.]

3.38 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): In presenting Estimates for the Department of Health for Scotland amounting to £2,800,000 odd it would be possible to cover an immense range of subjects because it is the function of that Department to deal with a large and varied number of topics in connection with the Government of Scotland. Even to enumerate them would take some time: they include such matters as housing, town planning, health insurance, hospitals, medical services, and the special features of many of these services in their relation to the Highlands and Islands. I am glad to be able to tell the Committee that but for the fact that the Estimate for housing has increased by £140,000 the total estimates for the Department would show a decline of almost £40,000. Part of that decline is due to the National Health Insurance Grant but almost £8,000 of it is due to administrative economies.
The Department itself has cost just short of £8,000 less to run this year than
in the previous year, and that has been mainly, but not exclusively, caused by the fact that the staff has been reduced from the figure of 765 to the figure of 742, a reduction of 23. I am sure the Committee will be glad to know that of these 23 men who were dismissed from the Department, two who are surveyors, have entered into private practice with the best prospects of success; of the 10 who applied to the Employment Exchange for employment, nine have got into work; and we understand that of the balance the great majority have found places in private work. I say that, because anybody who is responsible for securing a reduction in the staff of an office must feel that it is all-important to know what is the fate of the men whom the exigencies of national economy make it necessary to cause to leave the public service. On the whole, I must say that I am not dissatisfied with the situation and with what has happened to the 23 men.
Of that great range of subjects to which I have referred, I propose to select a certain number of the most salient— many of them, I am glad to say, I think the Committee will regard as satisfactory, though one or two show undoubted features of anxiety—and leave to other hon. Members the duty of raising any particular question which I have omitted and in which they may be specially interested; and to such questions I hope I shall be able to give some answer which will be of value to those who raise them. Of the subjects which I would like to place before the Committee housing, I think the Committee will agree, remains of the greatest importance, and indeed it may be said that it is even more important this year than last, because the housing policy of the Government, both in England and in Scotland, has now materialised in two Acts of Parliament. It will be of interest to the Committee to indicate as well as I can at this early stage, because the Scottish Housing Bill became law only on the 18th May, the kind of tendencies and results that are already showing from the new legislation.
But let me first summarise the general situation with regard to housing dealt with in the report. Remembering that the report of the Department embraces a period up to 31st December, 1932, let me give the Committee one or two salient
figures of the housing situation then. Houses completed in 1932 amounted to 15,818—not the highest figure there has even been, but among the best figures. Even more important, however, are the houses which were under construction and approved but not begun at the same date, namely, 3lst December last—that is to say, all the other houses beyond those already completed—and there the figure is most interesting. The houses under construction and approved but not begun were at that date at the very high figure of 30,777, the highest figure which has been reached in Scotland since the Housing Acts were first passed into law, and indeed almost 4,000 higher than the previous record. I think the Committee will recognise that that is a very satisfactory figure, and it will explain to many Scottish Members what they see with their own eyes when they go to their constituencies, namely, the immense activity in housing and the immense pressure there is on various forms of housing materials.
Let me now give the Committee the figure of slum houses completed, and I lay emphasis on the figure for this reason. Stated on broad lines, the general policy of the Government with regard to housing has been that the local authorities, both in Scotland and in England, should concentrate upon slum clearance and that normal housing should be done by unassisted private enterprise, though guarantees should be given to building societies, with the exception that there is in Scotland one other subsidy, namely, the £3 subsidy for houses to be let to low wage-earners at rents not exceeding 6s. per week, or 6s. 6d at the utmost. It is all-important, now that we are in a period when the attention of the local authorities is to be concentrated upon slum clearance, to see how the matter of slum clearance stood at 31st December last, and what progress has been made in the five months which have elapsed since Scotland knew that that was the policy of the Government.
I will therefore rive the slum clearance houses which were completed by the end of 1932. They were 19,699. What has happened in the five months since? Tenders have been approved for a larger number of slum clearance houses than have ever been approved in a corresponding period in any year Slum clearance
began roughly in 1923. It was not until 1931 that the figure for tenders approved for this period of five months nearly reached the 2,000 limit; in 1932 they rose to 2,969; and for the first five months of this year that figure is 3,739. Therefore, in the first five months of this year, we have reached a figure 770 in advance of the corresponding period of last year, and a very much larger figure in advance of the year before that. I think those are satisfactory figures, because they show that the local authorities are concentrating upon slum clearance and are continuing the admirable efforts which I have repeatedly told the House and the Committee they have made in Scotland and are still constantly increasing the number of slum clearance houses which they propose to build.
Having made the point clear that the number of tenders approved for slum clearance houses for the first five months of 1933 are well in advance of any similar period, I will give the Committee figures which show how constantly since slum clearance was first begun the interest and efforts of Scottish local authorities in this vital branch of housing has increased. In the first year tenders were approved for 1,100; in the second year, 1,400; third year, 2,400; fourth year, 2,100; fifth year, 2,800; sixth year, 1,600; seventh year, 1,700; eighth year, 2,100; for 1931, 5,600; and for 1932, 8,300. Those figures show the valuable assistance of the 1930 Act and how fully the local authorities in Scotland are responding to the task of clearing the slums. Do not let it be supposed that that task is complete. We are all well aware that it is not, and no effort that my right hon. Friend and I and the Department are able to make to advance slum clearance will be left unmade. Any efforts we may make at the centre will not be taken on the whole with regard to unwilling authorities. We shall assist local authorities which have already shown that they are not unmindful of the need for clearing away slums.
The Committee will want to know about the £3 subsidy houses. It was freely prophesied in the Debates on the Housing Bill that the £3 subsidy would never be used. The Bill has been an Act for only just over a month. Already 104 £3 houses have been finally approved, applications are in for 668, and inquiries are going on about a larger figure which I
cannot give the Committee. I do not think that the Committee will have any cause for dissatisfaction that there should have been that number in the first month. When we recollect how strictly the houses of that type are confined to the low wage-earner, we can feel that we are dealing with one of the difficult problems of Scottish houses.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: In what part of Scotland are these applications?

Mr. SKELTON: I will see if I can give the information in my reply.

Mr. TRAIN: Are we discussing the 1933 Act? Surely we are discussing the Acts of 1932?

Mr. SKELTON: I do not think that it is outside the custom on the Estimates to discuss the whole situation. Indeed from a constitutional point of view we are dealing with money that is spent partly in this year, and although the report deals with a period up to last December, it is a useful peg on which to hang a discussion of the present position. I should be sorry to have the discussion on the money that the Committee is to be asked to vote for this year only about what happened last year.
I want to say a word on the subject of costs. The situation is satisfactory for we have constantly been reducing costs of houses in Scotland. I will give the average costs for all types of houses for 1932 and the average for the tenders approved for the first five months of this year. Even in that short time the fall in cost is considerable. For all types of houses for 1932, the average cost was £300, that is, builders' cost only. That average of £300 has fallen to £285 for the first five months of this year. Decreases to £232, £240, and £250 can be found over a wide range of towns. The figures justify the position we took up in the Debates on the Housing Bill, that there was a definite decline in the cost of houses. That is of interest again as bearing on the value of the £3 subsidy.
I will next deal with the question under the last Housing Act of private enterprise and the building society guarantee which was embodied in Section 3. My information must be in general terms. Fourteen building corporations have been formed, and I do not think that it would
be unfair to say that they probably involve the construction of some 4,000 houses. It must not be taken that the activities of these corporations will be confined to building houses to let under the guarantee, and I am not able to say at the moment what number of that rough estimate of 4,000 houses will be houses to let. The formation of those 14 corporations shows the extent to which private enterprise is rousing itself to the task. Private, or what is called speculative, building is still going ahead in spite of the disappearance of the subsidy to that form of housing. I think that I am justified in saying that, short as has been the period since the Government sketched out their new policy, there are clear and satisfactory indications that private enterprise is addressing itself to the task of supplying the working-class with houses.
I would like to say a word about the progress of reconditioning rural houses under the Acts of 1926 and 1931. At 31st December, 1931, that is a year and five months ago, 11,000 odd approvals had been given for the reconditioning of rural houses, and the completions amounted to 8,000 odd. At 31st March, 1933, which is the last date for which I have got statistics, that is some 15 months later, the approvals had increased from 11,000 to 14,500, that is 3,500 more, and the cottages in which the improvements were completed had increased from 8,000 to almost 12,000, namely, 11,908. That is to say, in those 15 months almost 3,500 new cottages had been approved or reconditioned, and in almost 4,000 the improvements had been completed. When you consider the comparatively small number of rural cottages, these figures are not unsatisfactory. I, myself, think that they are most satisfactory. They show that the activity which is going on under the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts is still great, and anyone who has seen the difference between a cottage before it was improved and after it was improved, must realise what it means to Scottish rural life that almost 12,000 rural cottages had by the end of March undergone that improvement.
There is one last topic upon which I would like to touch with regard to houses. I spoke last year, and I have spoken on various occasions since, as to the necessity of the houses which have been built by subsidy being tenanted by people who
really are suitable to receive this assistance from the State, and I venture to recall to the Committee that the average State assistance given in the case of an Addison house amounts to 15s. 9d. a week, which is a very considerable contribution. Everyone knows the high class of house erected, and I think that public opinion is agreed that if Parliament has devoted immense time, a great deal of legislation, and large sums of money to the building of houses for working people, it is of vital importance that they should find tine right occupants. There are a great many propositions which receive general agreement, but when you come to apply them to individual cases, undoubtedly there are people who may feel that the shoe pinches, and I have seen indications in questions and answers, and, indeed, in a Debate on the Adjournment, that some Members were conscious of a certain pinch of the shoe when my right hon. Friend circularised the local authorities drawing their attention to the recommendations of the Consultative Committee which we had upon the subject, fortified as they were by the recommendations of the Lovat Committee. Let us see what is happening with regard to the means test. First of all, let me say what is the reaction of the local authorities to our original circular. Some immediately instituted inquiries, some have undertaken to apply the test in future cases, and some seem at present more doubtful. There are various degrees of virtue, but already the results show that the thing has been worth doing, and that not to do it would be a breach of duty on our part.
Let me take one or two examples. The Committee may remember that Aberdeen was the cause of some anxiety to some Members here, because the questionnaire on the subject of the incomes of the occupants of houses put before those occupants aroused at the time a certain amount of disturbance in that city. Well, that disturbance has been got over. We may hear something about it later on, but the fact is that, as a result of that questionnaire, 70 houses in Aberdeen have been left vacant by their tenants for the use of more suitable tenants. In all cases, I understand, tenants have been got and without reduced rent, moreover now, or presently 164 extra houses will produce a larger rent.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does the hon. Gentleman mean by "more suitable tenants," people whose income is lower?

Mr. SKELTON: Yes, that is what I mean. In the case of 164 houses, the rents have been raised by figures between 25s. and £5. That is one example. It may be said that these are not very large increases, but it is important to realise that in the case of the vacated houses you have an immediate opportunity of putting into them overcrowded families, and that when you have an increased rent, you obtain, in the case of the Addison house, a definite, though small, reduction of the burden on the State, and in the case of a 1924 house a reduction of the local burden upon the rates contribution. These are results which, it may be said, are not spectacular, and will not give you money on a gigantic scale. But it seems to me that the first task of administration is to see that the intention of the law is carried out, and the second and not less important task of administration is to see that the money which Parliament supplies is spent to the best advantage.
I said a moment ago that all local authorities have not made exactly the same response. That is true. Some say they will take action immediately, some in the future, and some, with truth, say that their town is so small, and the number of houses built so few, that they know without any inquiries for this specific purpose that the tenants occupying them are suitable. But the fact is, I am satisfied with the start of this policy. I am satisfied that local authorities are anxious to help. I am satisfied that in this matter the local authorities of Scotland, and Scotland generally, are in favour of this effort to ensure that the houses built are properly used, and I desire to say to the Committee and to Scotland that any assistance the Department can give to local authorities in this work will be most fully given. I want to make it quite clear that the start has not been unfavourable, that we are convinced the policy is a right one, and that we are perfectly satisfied that it must be pursued in the interests of those people who ought to be in the houses which were built for them, or, alternatively, in the interest of the State where those people in houses could pay a higher rent, and to the interest of the locality which would benefit by a more full return for their money.

Mr. McGOVERN: In connection with Aberdeen, the hon. Gentleman has told us of 70 people who, I take it, have such incomes that they can get houses outside the subsidy scheme. Will he tell us the number of people in the Aberdeen subsidy scheme who cannot afford to pay the rent, and is there any intention to subsidise those people to a greater extent?

Mr. SKELTON: I think it would be better if I followed the course of my speech than attempt to answer those questions, and, indeed, I prefer to deal with that subject in my reply. To answer the questions adequately means rather a full statement.

Mr. McGOVERN: But the hon. Gentleman has that information about Aberdeen.

Mr. SKELTON: I have certainly not got that information. I am concerned at the moment in seeing that suitable tenants get into the houses. The question of the rent which is to be paid by the suitable tenant is a question which, broadly speaking, is settled when the housing scheme is fixed, and I am unwilling to go into the details which an answer would involve. I would prefer now to deal, not with details, but with the general situation. I content myself with saying, on the subject of the means test, that I am satisfied that it is worth doing, that it should be done, and that we should assist the local authorities, and I have no doubt that, as the months go on, more and more local authorities will find that this result can be obtained without any alarming degree of friction or heat being engendered. I may add, as a matter of practical example, that I have noticed, although I will not give names or places, that there is already a slight tendency for people to slip out of those houses without any particular inquiry being instituted, and I should not be surprised, and I do not think the Committee would be, if it turned out that there are a good many people in Scotland in those houses who know that they should not be there. I leave the question of houses.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the question of the means test for houses, or before he comes to reply, seeing that he wants to get better posted in the details—

Mr. SKELTON: I never said anything of the sort.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The hon. Gentleman said distinctly that he would prefer to reply in detail later on. In order that he may be prepared with a reply later on, I want to put this point, which was raised by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) on the means test. The hon. Gentleman is taking up a certain line as far as those who are well off and can afford to come out of those houses and go to other houses. The question which arises, a far more serious one to us, is, What is to be done about those who are being evicted because they are not able to pay the rents of these new houses? Are you making any provision for them? Take the case of my own constituency, because it was that case and not the case of Glasgow which I raised with the Secretary of State for Scotland—

Mr. SKELTON: The hon. Member must realise that I am in the middle of putting the Estimates before the whole Committee, and while I am willing to give way to answer a question or two I am not inclined to allow my speech to take the form of a sandwich composed of, no doubt, very dry bread, with extremely stimulating meat provided by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) in the middle of it. I think I have the hon. Member's point, and if not I will take the opportunity of talking over the matter with him.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of explanation. It is not my fault that I have only just arrived. I have come here from the Committee considering the Road and Rail Transport Bill. We sat all the morning, and then it was decided, at the behest of a Member of the Government, that we should meet from 2 to 4 p.m. That is why I was not here at the beginning. I do not want the hon. Gentleman to think that I was breaking into his speech.

Mr. SKELTON: I am much obliged to the hon. Member. I appreciate very much the courtesy which he has always shown to me over a long period of years, and I hope that when he occupies the position that I do—

Mr. KIRKWOOD: What a hope.

Mr. SKELTON: —he will realise that there are a large number of topics to be dealt with, and that one is anxious to get on with the job, so that continuity of attention on the part of the Committee may not be broken. I shall take the opportunity of having a private discussion with my hon. Friend before I reply. I think I have dealt with the main topics connected with housing sufficiently to indicate to the Committee the general situation, though, as the Committee well know, the interest in it is endless, and we could spend many happy hours in its discussion.
The next topic with which I wish to deal is town planning. It is of importance, and I think satisfactory, that the City of Glasgow, with its environs, is now completely town planned, and that the City of Aberdeen, with a circle of the country extending over 96 square miles, has now got an admirable town planning scheme. I am not going into the merits of town planning, but I will say two things. One of the results of town planning in the case of Aberdeen has been that the banks of the Dee, from, I think, eight miles inland to Aberdeen, are preserved for all time as a beauty spot, and as affording an admirable entrance to that city whatever degree of development may come to it. Let me give an example of the necessity of town planning which came to my notice the other day, not in Scotland but in the South. Only last Saturday I was approaching the outskirts of a town and, about four miles away from it, came upon a small country house of the rather large villa type. Immediately behind it a private enterprise building scheme was putting up rows and rows of small houses. What was the result? The villa house was already up for sale. Inquiries convinced me that the value of that house to the owner had been reduced by many thousands of pounds; but the loss of value was not confined to the owner. It had a rateable value which was going down,. and when in fullness of time it comes to be valued for death duties it will have a value not of £5,000 or £6,000 but of only £1,800 or £2,000. In such a case the absence of proper planning means an absolutely unnecessary and a cruel loss of value not merely for the individual but for the State and for the locality. Therefore, it is a matter for congratulation that
the greatest city of Scotland, Glasgow, and the great city of Aberdeen, with certain of their surroundings, are fully town planned. The extension of town planning, although the full fruits of it are gathered only slowly, is most necessary in order that the future development of our country should be along right lines, that amenities should be preserved, and that values should not carelessly and ruthlessly be thrown away.
On the question of public health in Scotland, I cannot say that I am altogether satisfied with the figures which are before the Committee in the annual report. Here, I shall confine myself to the figures in the annual report, because they are the latest statistics before me. The question of human public health falls into three important divisions—maternal mortality, infantile mortality and infectious diseases. Maternal and infantile mortality are dealt with on pages 56 and 57 of the report. The figures for maternal mortality in 1932 show a slight rise, having gone up from 5.9 per thousand to 6.4. Fortunately, they are not higher than in the year before that, and some of the previous years, but the serious and remarkable thing about maternal mortality is that it has been increasing steadily ever since 1855. It is a most mysterious phenomenon, and I do not think it is confined to Scotland.
All I can say is that we are not being idle in the matter. We have had a close investigation into a number of fatal maternity cases but the doctors, our medical advisers and others who are skilled in this subject say that it is unwise to attempt to draw any final conclusions from the records of the fatal cases only, and that we must supplement them with the records of all cases. In the middle of December, 1932, we instituted an investigation, to extend over six months, into every case of child-birth in Scotland. That period has just closed, and when the results of that investigation are examined I believe that we shall have data more complete than exist elsewhere for the attempt to grapple still further with this most difficult and perplexing problem. Until we have put the new facts before the medical experts it is idle to attempt to say anything more about the subject.
The figures of infant mortality, too, I am sorry to say, show a slight rise,
though a very slight rise, over those of the previous year. The figures for 1932 are 86 per thousand, which is four per thousand above the figure for 1931 and I above the average of the last five years. When I made efforts to investigate this matter for myself, the most striking feature which presented itself to me was not the comparatively small rise over the previous year's figures, though that is undesirable, but the fact that for a long period of yeans Scottish infant mortality has been definitely higher than the English.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: That is due to our housing.

Mr. SKELTON: Let me give my own explanation. The medical experts are not so clear about it.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: The weather has to be taken into account.

Mr. SKELTON: I think my hon. Friend the Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten), with his knowledge of the weather, seems to be nearer the mark. At all events, the fact is that for a number of years the Scottish infantile mortality rate has been higher than the English, although for a previous period the English rate was higher than the Scottish. The difference has been in the nature of some 15 per thousand over a considerable period of years. What is interesting is that when one analyses the English figures one finds that, speaking broadly, infant mortality increases as one goes north, and that in Northumberland and Durham the figures of infant mortality are almost exactly comparable with the Scottish figures. When I made inquiries I found that the matter had been reviewed by Sir Leslie Mackenzie 10 years ago in a previous report by the Department, and the conclusion he came to, tentatively, was that there was some relation between climate and infantile mortality. The point that has been made, and it seems to have medical foundation, is that it is not the intensity of the climate but its variability that is the evil influence on the life of the very young. I was startled when I first saw the difference between the figures for England and Scotland, and then I was interested and not quite so disturbed when I found that the further north one went in England the nearer
one approximated to the conditions in Scotland. I throw the facts out to Members of the Committee, and I have indicated the various assumptions which can be made from them.
Next I come to infectious diseases, a subject not to be lightly disregarded. Apart from the effects which follow them and the deaths for which they are responsible, infectious diseases are the cause of an immense disturbance of family life and of education and a considerable increase of expenditure both private and public. The only feature with regard to infectious diseases to which I wish to draw attention is the disturbing one that last year we had an epidemic of scarlet fever in Scotland which brought up the cases from 18,000 to 28,000. That raises the question of whether we are doing all we can to emphasise the necessity of the prevention of disease as well as doing our best to cure it. There has been an immense amount of work in recent years on the question of immunisation. which is the making of people immune from various diseases by inoculation. I notice with satisfaction that when scarlet fever spread to Zetland the local authority took steps to make available to private practitioners means of immunising their patients. I believe that that was a valuable help in dealing with the epidemic. I do not think that medical opinion would say that we are fully aware of the range of diseases in which immunisation may be of assistance. The practice of immunisation is far advanced in the case of scarlet fever, but many people think it is also valuable in influenza and other diseases because of our expanding skill and knowledge upon the subject. I shall not attempt to give any answer upon that point, but the fact that you can have a sudden attack of such a disease as scarlet fever raging through Scotland in one year in such a way as to be thoroughly disturbing, raises the question of whether we can, in the matter of infectious diseases, do more in the way of prevention. I propose, so far as I can, to follow up this subject, and perhaps a future Under-Secretary, in a future year, may have more to say to the Committee on this interesting matter.
So much for measures connected with human health. I will now draw the attention of the Committee to an extremely
important function of the Department of Health connected with animal welfare. I refer to the inspections, one of which per annum is statutory, of the dairy herds of Scotland by veterinary officers. There are many counties who do not have one inspection, but three. The value of these inspections cannot be gainsaid. They result in an earlier detection of the tuberculous cow, and in an earlier elimination of the risk of infection therefrom. I wish publicly to express my thanks, the thanks of my right hon. Friend and of the Department, to those counties which have exceeded their statutory duty of one inspection. The Committee will see that if the veterinary officer goes round three times a year to each farm where there are cows, he thereby reduces the period during which a tuberculous cow may be giving milk, and the appearance of tuberculosis is noted at a very much earlier stage. I assure the Committee that no effort of mine will be wanting to see that the standard of this most valuable work is made as high as possible. For the benefit of those hon. Members who are particularly interested in agriculture, may I say that one of the ways in which the dairy industry, as a branch of our national agriculture, may most be helped, is by giving consumers a greater confidence in the purity of the produce. From that aspect, the increase and development of the system of dairy inspection is a matter of high importance, and I can hardly over-emphasise the hygienic and economic importance of this matter. Prevention is better than cure, and along the lines of preventive medicines our public health efforts may more and more have to be concentrated.
May I take this opportunity of reminding the Committee that my right hon. Friend announced some time ago that he was going to set up a committee to deal with public health services of Scotland, a question which originated in the report of another committee and is obviously one, of great importance. The House of Commons has had before it the terms of reference to the committee, which are:
To review the existing health services of Scotland in the light of modern conditions and knowledge, and to make recommendations on any changes in policy and organisation that may be considered necessary for the promotion of efficiency and economy.
I am now in a position to announce to the Committee what the personnel of the
proposed committee will be. We have been extremely fortunate in getting Sir John Dove-Wilson, a retired Judge, who was chairman of the Natal Supreme Court and more recently chairman of the Persistent Offenders' Committee, to take the chair of the committee. The other members will be:

Mr. George Bonar, of Dundee.
Dr. Brownlie, Chief Medical Officer of the Department of Health.
Mr. Ian Carmichael, a well-known local administrator in Lanarkshire.
Professor Edward Cathcart, Professor of Physiology in Glasgow University.
Dr. Robert Craig, of the Scottish section of the British Medical Association.
Provost David Fisher, of Hawick.
Professor Alexander Gray, Professor of Economics in Aberdeen University.
Sir Andrew Grierson, Town Clerk of Edinburgh.
Dr. John Jardine, of the Scottish Education Department.
Dr. A. S. M. McGregor, Chief Medical Officer of Glasgow.
Lady Leslie Mackenzie.
Mr. W. Marshall, Clerk to the Scottish Association of Insurance Committees.
Dr. Alexander Miles, a well-known Edinburgh surgeon.
Bailie Violet Roberton, who is well known in Glasgow.
Mr. J. M. Vallance, of the Department of Health for Scotland.
Mrs. Chalmers Watson,
Mr. Joseph Westwood, whom I need not identify because he was well known in this House and, speaking for myself, I much regret his absence.
This Committee has a most important task to perform. I believe that the professional and public opinion of Scotland is looking forward with immense interest to the investigation that will proceed. I think that we may get, from the close investigations of this Committee, recommendations which will be of real and lasting value to the administration of the public health services of Scotland. I have dealt with these large topics— housing, town planning, and public health in its various aspects—and I do not want to go into detail now on the many large questions which are clustered round the question of public assistance. I will not go into the figures, but I will point out to the Committee that those figures are on pages 176 to 179 of the
Report. They are heavy and the increases in them have been considerable, but between January, 1933, and April, 1933, there has been an improvement in the unemployment figures in Scotland of 42,700. No doubt the Committee will analyse those figures in various ways, but it cannot be doubted that a certain important proportion of that very considerable figure of 42,700 must result in relieving the burden of the local authorities in regard to poor relief. Without exception of party, the Committee will be gratified to know what those figures show.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has just informed the House of the decrease in the numbers of unemployed in Scotland. Can he now give us the figures of any increase that may have taken place in the numbers of those in receipt of Poor Law relief?

Mr. SKELTON: I have already said that I did not want to weary the Committee with the figures. May I just make my speech in my own way? I said that the Committee would like to know that there had been a decrease in the number of unemployed in 1933. I made no attempt to go into details. I venture to say that it is a satisfactory figure, criticise it and whittle it down as you will, that as between January and April there has been that decrease of unemployment. Satisfactory, too, is the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health this afternoon, that a grant of £500,000 is to be given to the distressed areas for the current financial year. On the ordinary Goschen proportion Scotland will receive a little over £60,000 of that sum, and it will be a most welcome addition to the finances of the local authorities who receive it. I cannot at the moment say what the allocation of that £60,000 will be between the local authorities, but as soon as we know the House of Commons and the local authorities will be informed.

Mr. LOGAN: May I ask the Minister whether that sum is absolutely definite? Is there no possibility of any extension? Is it absolutely final?

Mr. SKELTON: That is a question for a Cabinet Minister rather than for an
Under-Secretary. The House of Commons received that figure this afternoon of £500,000, and all I have to say is that, in the ordinary course of things, Scotland will receive £60,000. We are rather inclined to associate the immense nexus of social services which the Department supervises with the great towns. We feel so much the importance in these areas of better health provisions, pensions, poor relief and so on, but I am inclined to think that the great advance which has been made in these services in the last generation, or generation and a half, has had its widest and most complete effect in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. The Committee is well aware of the special services which are rendered there. Take the normal life of the crofter population—secure to some extent for their food requirements and in their housing and land, but scattered and living in isolated and difficult districts. There you will now find not only a pension coming in in many oases, but also a wide network of hospitals, doctors and nurses spreading all through the Highlands and Islands, where 30 years ago, it is not an exaggeration to say, such services were practically unknown. There are, of course, great improvements in the way of roads and transport. But if we try to assess the values of the development of the public health services which are grouped under the Department of Health, and consider in what part of Scotland those services have had the most profound effect, I would say that it is in those outlying, isolated, lonely and separated places, where there are difficulties from the nature of the geography and the nature of the social structure, that the efforts of at least a generation of parliaments of Scotsmen and Englishmen have had their greatest effect. Much remains to be done. I believe, and I think the Committee believes, most profoundly, that we must rely upon the welfare of the rural districts for the well-spring of national health and strength, and it is of profound importance that these services have been of such special advantage to, and have made such a difference in, the lives of these rural districts.
In my official position I have had the honour to be closely connected with the Scottish Department of Health for nearly two years. The Committee will realise from the report before them how varied
and onerous is the work which the Department does. I should not like to conclude without expressing my appreciation of the work of the staff. Their experience, wisdom and unceasing care, for which no trouble has been too great, have made from my point of view such responsibility as our constitution most properly places upon the shoulders of a Minister lighter than it would otherwise be, and I wish at the opening of the Debate, in which there will be many comments and some criticisms, as there must be in all Departmental activities— and I think the Committee would also like me to do so—to express my feeling of deep admiration and respect for the work of those who serve the Department.

4.46 p.m.

Mr, DUNCAN GRAHAM: The Under-Secretary in an admirable speech has presented perhaps the best case that could be made for his Department during the past year. Respect for his work and his qualities is a matter of common agreement, and whatever I may have to say in the form of criticism will be from the same motive that animates the Under-Secretary and for the benefit of the country to which we both belong. The report, as usual, is a very well produced document. It is always a pleasure to read the report of the Department. Whether or not we agree with the comments in it is another matter. There are some things in this year's report with which I do not agree, but I am bound to say that each year the Department produce a document which is well worth the study of every Scotsman engaged in public life, whether in Parliament or in other directions.
The Under-Secretary covered a considerable amount of ground in his speech. In the first instance he dealt with the fact that the Department had to dispense with the services of 23 members of the staff. I do not know exactly what the actual work of the Department is, but in view of the fact that it is responsible for the administration of every phase of life in Scotland it seems to me that instead of having fewer members of its staff it ought to have more, especially in view of the statement made by the Under-Secretary as to the great progress made, particularly in housing. I must express my regret that it should have been found necessary, in the interests of what we
believe to be largely false economy, to reduce the number of the staff. The Under-Secretary expressed his regret for the necessity of reducing the staff and indicated his sympathy with those who had been displaced. I do not think that he said that they had all found work. If there is any possibility of those who are still idle being restored to their original positions in the Department, I hope that will be done.
The hon. Member dealt very largely with the housing question and, quite properly, claimed a considerable amount of credit for the progress that has been made in the provision of houses. It is not altogether pleasant sailing in that particular matter. I am interested in what appears in Appendix 2 on page 148 under what is described as "Summary of Proceedings" so far as housing is concerned. It is there stated that the total number of houses inspected during the last year was 87,903, in the counties 29,815 and in the burghs 58,088. Of that total the number unfit for human habitation in the counties was 4,973 and in the burghs 9,287. As I read it that means that at least one-sixth of the total houses inspected were admitted by the Department to be unfit for human habitation. I should like to know, and I think the Committee would like to know, the number of houses in Scotland as divided between the counties and the burghs. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will give the information in his reply. We believe, although I do not think it will be acceptable in all parts of the Committee, that the single and two-apartment houses are slums, no matter whether they are in town or in country. If there is not sufficient accommodation to enable the sexes to be separated and for the father and mother of the household to have a room to themselves, we believe on this side of the House that that house ought to be swept out of existence, and we shall not be satisfied with any report from the Department until that position has been secured. A house should contain at least three apartments. I feel sure that every Member of the Committee will agree with that view, as an individual, and I feel certain that no doctor worthy of the name could do other than describe the vast number of these one and two-apartment houses as wholly unfit for human habitation.
The Under-Secretary indicated that he was very much alarmed because of the increase in maternal and infantile mortality, and he said that he was not sure of the causes of that increased mortality. There are a number of causes, but the main cause is poverty. There has been an inquiry into mortality in different occupations and I have seen figures, although I have not them in my possession, where eminent medical authorities have stated that the infantile mortality rate was something like one-third in the middle classes of what it is in the ordinary working classes. In the occupation with which I am connected the mortality is as high as 260 per 1,000 in the mining villages compared with only 50 per 1,000 infantile mortality in the middle classes. I know a large number of mining centres in the industrial west of Scotland, and I am sure that while there has been fairly decent progress made, and I am willing to give due credit to the Department for the work they have done, there are large numbers of unsightly and absolutely uninhabitable houses still occupied by members of the mining and other working class communities. The reason why they occupy those houses is not because they have a liking for them but because they have not the means to pay a higher rent.
Some reference has been made to the means test being applied. I am sure that that is not going to get over the housing difficulty. Where you have a considerable number of empty houses, a big proportion will be houses owned by local authorities. A great number of houses owned by local authorities are occupied by tenants who are unable to pay the rents that are being demanded. It is no use for Members of the House or for the Department to slide over the point which the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) attempted to put. It is a very material point. I am not so sure that even a rent of 6s. is capable of being paid, in view of certain statements in the report of the Board of Health, with which I very strongly disagree, in which attention is drawn to the fact that in some areas too much money is being paid in unemployment relief. In the chapter dealing with the Poor Law, on page 139, there is some criticism with regard to the difficulties of the treatment of the poor in different areas. The sug-
gestion of the Department seems to be that some burghs and counties are allowing too much. Some of them are paying too little, and very much less than ought to be paid if any pretence is made by the local authorities of looking after the health and well-being of the people.
I said some months ago that one of the main reasons for the ill-health of our people was poverty, and that is true today. The Under-Secretary of State made some reference to an inquiry that has been held into infant mortality. He said that the increase had been mostly due to variable climatic conditions, and that the further North one went the higher the rate of mortality became. I suppose when you reach the North Pole you will not be able to live at all, and when you get to the Equator there will be no such thing as infant mortality. I hope that that is not a right description of the position, but I suggest that the further North you go, and particularly in the mining districts, the higher becomes the mortality. That is largely because of the poverty of those mining centres, because the people have too little to live upon, and because the housing conditions are not what they ought to be.
It would be impossible for a Member like myself to cover the ground in the same way as the Under-Secretary of State has done, and I am sure there are many Members who want to speak in this Debate. But before raising any new matter, I should like to draw attention to an element in the position which was not very fully explained by the Under-Secretary when he dealt with the question of poor relief or unemployment assistance. He patted himself on the chest and congratulated the Government on the fact that there had been a reduction of something like 43,000 in the number of the unemployed. The figures in the report itself do not give much cause for such a feeling of pleasure. I take from the report the following figures: In Clydebank, in 1931 the number of destitute able-bodied unemployed relieved amounted, taking the persons themselves and their dependants, to 3,600. In 1932, the number was 6,806, an increase of 88 per cent. during the last year. In Dumbarton, there was an increase of 67 per cent. In Port Glasgow, the increase was 80 per cent. In Falkirk, it was 61 per cent., in Glasgow 55 per cent., and in Hamilton 75 per cent. The average of
those six burghs is, roughly, 60 per cent. increase in the number of persons for whom the local authority has been held responsible.
That has had this effect: In Clydebank, the rate per pound for the payment of destitute able-bodied unemployed in 1931 was 10.ld., in 1932 it was 1s. 4.5d. In Dumbarton, it has risen from 7.3d. to 1s. 2.9d. In Port Glasgow, it has risen from 9.5d. to 1s. 2.7d. In Glasgow, it has risen from 8.5d. to 1s. 0.4d., and in Hamilton, from 9.6d. to 1s. 5.1d. These burghs, of which I have spoken, with the figures which are to be found in the report, are in the counties of Dumbarton, Renfrew and Lanark. In those counties I do not think there has been any decrease in the number of the unemployed, but, if anything, an increase during the last year. If this were only for the last year it would not be anything about which you need make a very strong case, but when I remind the Committee that so far as Lanark is concerned last year was only one of a continuing series of years since the end of the War. I am putting a case that justifies a very big percentage of the £60,000, if it comes at all, being given to those three counties. According to the report, the destitute able-bodied in 1931 had increased by fully 66 per cent. That is a very serious position so far as Scotland is concerned because, with the possible exception of certain parts of Wales, Scotland has been worse hit than any other part of the United Kingdom. From this side of the Committee we put forward a plea for a much more kindly attitude and for more generous treatment on the part of the Department to the claims made by the local authorities for relief, particularly in those localities to which I have referred.
I have had a communication from the local health insurance committees dealing with the question of the application of the new Act. I had an application from Hamilton Local Medical Panel Committee, which I handed over to the Under-Secretary of State, who is in charge of that particular branch of Scottish administration. I received a reply from the hon. Gentleman which is not at all satisfactory. I think that either the hon. Gentleman or the Secretary of State for Scotland ought to be prepared to raise this matter in the Cabinet, and at least try to get some agreement
reached by which medical benefit will be secured to those who are unemployed and who are threatened with the loss of medical benefit at the end of this year. I am sure the Under-Secretary of State himself is not quite so happy as he could wish about his reply. I and some of the other representatives of Lanarkshire in this House had a meeting with the county medical panel committee, which deals with these matters. There were present at that meeting representatives of different districts, and representatives of the doctors. Very strong feelings were expressed in regard to the proposed changes.
It will be generally agreed that if any part of the medical profession has made sacrifices during the last few years, it has been the doctors in the rural areas of the counties of Dumbarton, Renfrew and Lanark. I do not think that any more sacrifices should be asked from that particular section of the medical profession. I hope that the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary will try to get some arrangement come to by which the position under the present Act will be modified, so as at least to make secure that there shall be medical attendance, and that the State shall pay the cost of that attendance, in the case of men unfortunately unemployed. I sincerely hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be able to give the Committee, which I am sure is as strongly interested in this matter as I am, some assurance that at least in regard to that particular complaint about the medical attendance of the unemployed some modification will be made, which will give satisfaction to the people in charge of this onerous work.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. TRAIN: I wish to join with the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) in congratulating the Under-Secretary of State on his clear elucidation of the Scottish Estimates and all their ramifications. The hon. Member for Hamilton began his speech with a complaint, after complimenting the Under-Secretary. His complaint was that the Board of Health was reducing its staff to the extent of some 23 persons. I think, on reflection, that the hon. Member will find he has made a mistake in grousing at those 23 people being dismissed. My great surprise is that there have not been hundreds of people dis-
missed by the Scottish Board of Health in these times. We all know that to deal with this great housing problem which, so far as the Scottish Board of Health is concerned, began in 1919, there were great additions to the staff, which had to examine, lay out and advise. Architects and surveyors were brought up from private enterprise, and they mopped up ex-town clerks and made them housing directors. These men have done their work very well and efficiently. But now, after something like 14 years' experience of housing, housing standards are pretty well settled. Plans can now be produced in the form of blue prints. For years architects have sat laboriously over their drawing-boards, and they have produced satisfactory plans which are now adopted all over the country. Therefore, my great surprise is that the staff has not been reduced by much more than 23. It is, however, some satisfaction to know that, as the Under-Secretary has told us, most of these people are finding jobs, and I am glad to know that they are doing so under private enterprise. Now that the Government which we on this side support is giving private enterprise a start in housing, there are lots of jobs that these men can go back to, and thereby relieve the ratepayers and the taxpayers considerably.
I must congratulate the Department of Health on this report. It is something of which I am sure they are proud, and of which we who support the Government are proud. There has not been such a report on the work of the Department for many years. During the two years that the late Government were in office, they produced something like 10,000 or 11,000 houses. Last year something like 16,000 houses were built, showing an increase of 50 per cent. on the number produced by the Labour Government, although hon. Members opposite have been "grousing" at the National Government for not getting on with housing. It is something that the supporters of the Government ought to be proud of.

Mr. D. GRAHAM: You have not much more to be proud of.

Mr. TRAIN: It is one thing, at all events, and we will make the most of it. While complimenting the Department on this report, there are one or two criticisms that one might make upon it.
The first is in regard to the introduction, which, to a plain man like myself, is rather difficult to understand. On the first page of the introduction I find these words:
It is now possible…to contemplate a definite reorientation of housing policy.
That is a very fine word, and it is very commonly used. I do not know who was responsible for putting it into this report, but someone told me the other day that the meaning of this word "reorientation" was going East instead of West. If it means building no more houses in Glasgow and building more in Edinburgh, I do not agree with it. Further on in the report we find that it is the policy that is being altered in regard to housing, and I think one may say, on reflection, that it is time that the policy in regard to housing was altered. I see that in 1919, when the local authorities were asked to make a return of the number of houses required in Scotland to meet the deficit, they said that it was 131,000. From the report we find that there have been built since that period something like 160,000 houses, so that we have overtaken all the shortage in housing that was reported by the local authorities in 1919. The report, however, goes on to say, and rightly, that a number of houses go out of use every year; they become uninhabitable by the efflux of time, through decay. That number is put at something like 6,000. If we go on building at the rate that we did in 1932, namely, something like 16,000 houses a year, in two years we shall have overtaken all the shortage of houses reported by the local 'authorities, and shall have made up the number which go out of use by the ordinary process of decay after a life of, say, 100 years. That is the justification for this reorientation of policy. We have overcome the shortage, or, at least, we are within sight of doing so.

Mr. KIRKW00D: I have no desire to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he might tell us—

Mr. TRAIN: The hon. Member will have his chance later. There have been grave complaints from many, including the hon. Member for Hamilton, about the means test being part of the new policy of this Government in regard to housing. I would ask the hon. Member and his colleagues: Who introduced the means test in housing? Since I came into the House, one or two Housing Acts have
been passed, and I would direct the hon. Member's attention to one of them, which contains a formula with regard to the occupants of houses under that Act, which was passed by the Labour Government. It depends on the number in the family and so on, and upon the ability of the tenant to pay. Is not that a means test? I am not "grousing" about it; I rather admire it; I admire the pluck of the Government that brought it in, and I think it is right; but we find from this report that some of these three-apartment houses are let to people according to their ability to pay at rents of £4 per annum, because they cannot afford to pay more.

Mr. D. GRAHAM: Are there any houses of that type in Lanark?

Mr. TRAIN: I am not referring to Lanark or Glasgow, or anywhere in particular; I am referring to the Fourth Annual Report of the Department of Health for Scotland, in which this statement will be found that there are houses let at £4 per annum. It is on page 18:
The rent charged, for example, for a three-apartment house varies from as low as £4 to as high as £20 10s.

Mr. D. GRAHAM: That may be so in the North of Scotland, but not in the West.

Mr. TRAIN: It does not matter where it is; it is a statement by the Department in their report, and they are responsible for it. That is the effect of the means test, that these people are getting houses at £4 per annum. I am not grumbling at it. I think it is right. If they cannot afford to pay the rent, they should nevertheless be properly housed in the interests of public health. But, when we come to the other side of the case, we find that since 1919 houses have been built at prices varying £l,000 down to £300. There were the Addison houses, the Chamberlain houses, the Wheatley houses, and the houses built under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act and all the various other Acts, and they are let at various rents according to what is agreed upon by the local houses. Now that we seem to have overcome the shortage of houses, I am all for the means test. I am with the Labour Government who introduced the means test in housing, giving people houses at £4 if they cannot pay more; but I would ask the man who can pay an economic rent to
do so, or, if he does not, to get out and leave the house to the man who cannot pay an economic rent. I give the Labour Government credit for bringing in the means test for housing, but I want to see it applied, not only to the man who cannot pay, but to the man who can pay. It is no use saying that it is an inquisition to ask a man to state his annual income or his weekly income if he wants to get one of these subsidised houses, because he is asking people who are perhaps worse housed than he is to pay part of his rent. Therefore, although this word "reorientation" may be a long one, if it means applying a decent means test to the man who can pay as well as to the man who cannot, I agree with it, and I do not see why my hon. Friends on the other side-should grumble, seeing that they were; the instigators of it.
I noticed that there were various points in the Under-Secretary's speech which the hon. Gentleman opposite did not pursue, and I will leave it at that, because I think they were very good points. With regard to the position of rural housing I am very dissatisfied, and have a "grouse" against the Government. I find, on looking at the report, that only £500 was spent under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act in 1932. I had the honour of being appointed by the late Labour Government to the Committee that allocated these houses. Altogether we allocated something like 600 houses, of which about 100 were in the constituency of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair). I wonder what they have been doing since then? They have only spent about £100. We were giving grants of £15, £20 and £25 a year, and yet all that has been spent this year on rural houses is £500, according to the report It may be that the rural people are taking the view that the rural areas are becoming depopulated, and according to the report that is true. Within the last 10 years the population of the landward portions has decreased by something like 90,000. On the other hand, in the burghal areas the population has increased by something like 50,000. Therefore, we have a shortage all over the country of something like 40,000 in 10 years. That, of course, makes one careful. On the other hand, we find in the statistics that within the last 100 years the density of the population occupying houses has been reduced by 2.5 per cent.
In 1822 it was something like 6.5 To-day it is about 4. Therefore, we need more houses for the people because there are not so many people occuping houses.
This should please hon. Members opposite, who have a great complaint against room and kitchen houses. There is nothing finer in Scotland for a newly married couple, or for an old couple without family, than a good comfortable room and kitchen house provided you can give them all the latest sanitary requirements. There, again, there is a great problem in connection with public health. We have been increasing the sanitary accommodation of houses from year to year, especially in the last 15 years since these various Housing Acts came in. What has the result been? We have had difficulties in rural areas for want of water supply. We have had difficulties because of the want of an outfall for sewage. Streams have been polluted. People are drawing water from wells. In order to promote better housing and better sanitation, it might be worth while to consider scrapping some of these artificial boundaries and dividing Scotland more according to the water shed and to the water supply that can be obtained. In my view you will never have complete and efficient housing of the people until we get to that stage.
The Under-Secretary referred to town planning. My mind goes back to a little over a year ago when the right hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness was Secretary of State for Scotland. I said that Glasgow was completely town planned under the 1925 Act. The right hon. Baronet said I was misinformed. I am pleased to see from this report that Glasgow has been all town planned. There is not a square yard of ground that is not town planned under the 1925 Act. I see that Aberdeen is on a par with Glasgow. I trust it will be an example for many boroughs and counties to get on with town planning. Another point that was mentioned by the Under-Secretary is that of necessitous areas. There is no one in the House who does not feel very deeply the plight of these distressed areas. Unemployment has been rampant since 1921 and it is up to the Government to do something to relieve them. One is glad to know that there is some
prospect of this being done and the burden being spread. I congratulate the Under-Secretary and I wish the Government every success.

5.35 p.m.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I should like to associate myself with the tribute that has been paid to the Under-Secretary for his masterly review of the Estimates of his Department. I should like also to associate myself with the tribute that he paid to his officials. Anyone who has had any connection with the Department must feel genuine admiration for the work that that loyal and devoted band of servants do for the people of Scotland. I am sure there is in the whole range of the Departments of State no more efficient and no happier Department than that over which the Under-Secretary presides with so much ability and courtesy to his fellow Members. I welcome the inquiry that has been set up into the health services. The terms of reference mention the word "economy" which if it means, as I hope it does, the extraction of the greatest amount of benefit from a given expenditure is to be applauded. In so far as it means greater efficiency and concentration of available resources and intelligence upon the problems of public health, it is to be welcomed. The very able report of the Department of Health shows clearly that there is a need for some such inquiry.
The Under-Secretary referred to the unsatisfactory and mysterious figures of maternal mortality. I should like to know what efforts are being made to get local authorities to improve their services. There is a reference in the report to proposals that are being submitted for the improvement of maternity services by local authorities, and the Committee would be interested if we could be given some idea of their scope and whether they are now being put into operation. We are very glad to hear that the inquiry of the Scientific Advisory Council into the conditions that tend to maternal mortality, and the relative importance of the various causative factors, is being continued and pressed forward, but I should like to ask why, in view of the seriousness of the problem, there is actually in the Estimates a reduction from £3,200 to £2,700 in the grant for the training of midwives and health visitors.
The figures of infant mortality also give cause for grave concern. The theory that it is connected in some way with climate is a very interesting one. Is this theory borne out by the known factors? The Under-Secretary gave us figures to illustrate it in England. Is it borne out by experience in other countries? Is it true in Scotland that, the further North you go, the greater the infant mortality? If the theory of the hon. Member who spoke for the Labour party is right, it would be the other way round. He thinks the reason why there is a higher rate of infant mortality in the North of England than in the South is because there is greater poverty and distress there. If that theory is correct, you would expect to find a higher rate of infant mortality in the South and West of Scotland than in the North, and it would be interesting if we could be given the figures for Scotland to compare with those for England and also, if possible, at some other time the figures for other countries in regard to infant mortality. I myself believe that in estimating the relative importance of the various causative factors of infant and maternal mortality and also, perhaps, in regard to resistance to infectious diseases, that diet will be found to be another factor of the greatest importance.
The Under-Secretary mentioned the veterinary service and the clinical inspection of cows in byres. I was glad to hear him pay a tribute to the local authorities which have the three inspections a year. It is a service of the utmost value, and it gives greater confidence in the milk supply from those localities than from others. The local authorities are, indeed, to be commended for their enterprise. At the same time, this question of cleaning up the milk supplies of the country is one of even wider and greater significance. There is no finer food for the people, and above all for the children, of the country than milk. The great experiments which were conducted on a large scale on 10,000 children in Lanarkshire alone by the Empire Marketing Board and certain Research Departments will be fresh in the memory of many hon. Members. They showed clearly that the physique and vitality of the children who received the ration of milk improved. You cannot really measure the intelli-
gence as between two groups of children, one fed on milk and the other on other foods, because intelligence may vary inside the group. What was clearly proved was that the physique of the children fed on milk improved and there was a great deal of evidence to show that their vitality improved. Many of the teachers who had these children under their charge said that those who were fed on milk were more difficult to control and showed greater liveliness than the others.
Therefore, it seems to me that an increase in the consumption of milk would be one of the best means of improving the diet of the people and of dealing with many of the other questions to which I have referred. To do that you must go to the root by such means as are now being successfully employed on a large group of farms in Ayrshire and eradicate tuberculosis. I hope that measures of that kind which would give an opportunity of immensely improving the physique of the nation and of strengthening its resistance to disease, and, at the same time, be of great benefit to agriculture, will seriously be considered by the Government. The West of Scotland College of Agriculture has estimated that if the people of this country drank only a quarter of a pint more milk per day we should require 100,000 more cows and 10,000 more people to look after them. If we drank as much as Sweden it is doubtful if there would be sufficient land in Scotland to carry the cows which would be required.
I wish to refer to the remarks which the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland made about the great benefit which had been derived from the Scottish Health Services by the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. We in the Highlands and Islands fully appreciate them. We are grateful to successive Governments which have developed the services which the Department of Health so ably administers. I do not hesitate to say that it is a good investment by the State in the Highlands of Scotland, and that it is one to which they, like every other part of Scotland, are entitled. These are great national services and should be available to men and women in the most remote and impoverished districts. This House has not only shown generosity but wisdom in making this investment in the High-
lands, and it has paid the nation well to give these services.
The Under-Secretary [...]lerred to the fact that the figures of unemployment had declined during the past five months in Scotland by 42,000, but it is very pertinent, though he rather waived aside the objection of the hon. Gentleman opposite, to consider whether it is a real reduction and how far it is affected by men being taken off the registers and put on to Poor Law relief. It would be interesting if the Under-Secretary, or whoever replies, can say how many men during the same period have gone on to Poor Law relief. What is the net total of the reduction in Scottish unemployment. I also wish to refer to the statement of the Under-Secretary, following upon the announcement made by the Minister of Health at Question time, that we in Scotland are to get £60,000 to aid the distressed areas. I am not clear, and I hope that the Secretary of State may be able to make it clear when he replies, that this amount will be sufficient to carry out the pledge which the Government gave to the House of Commons some three or four weeks ago, that the able-bodied unemployed would become a national charge. Can he give a clear undertaking and guarantee? I hope that he will be able to say that the sume of money available for Scotland will enable all the able-bodied unemployed there to cease to be a charge upon the local rates, and become a national charge.
I was glad to hear from the Under-Secretary, and in fact we read it in the report, about the progress being made in that most fundamental of all aspects of housing—the question of town and regional planning. The Act of last year only came into operation on the 1st April, and perhaps the Under-Secretary will tell us if, in fact, schemes are actively in course of preparation, and whether he has any progress to report upon the operation of the Act. I cannot say that I listened altogether with satisfaction to the account which the Under-Secretary of State gave of the progress which is now being made in housing. It is quite true that the results up to now are such as must be satisfactory to every Member of this Committee, but it is not clear whether or not the departure which has been made so recently in policy will have the results
which the Government held out to us when the Housing Bill was under discussion a few weeks ago.
The Under-Secretary of State informs us that 14 building corporations have been formed. I think that really the only hope of getting very much advantage from the plan of operating through the building societies would be by means of a housing board or housing corporation to unify and co-ordinate the efforts of building societies, building contractors and local authorities all through Scotland. The so-called 14 building corporations are, I suppose, building contracting firms coming together and combining for the purpose of taking on building contracts. We are told that they will probably construct 4,000 houses in the coming year, many of which will not be built with the aid of the State guarantee under the new Act. If they are not built by the aid of that guarantee, I suppose that there will not be any guarantee whatever for the maintenance of the housing standards which we put into that Measure, and upon which the Department of Health can only insist provided that the building corporation ask to have the advantage of the guarantee.
The local authorities, it is true, have some control, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State may be able to tell us that he will use his influence with the local authorities to see, even where the guarantee is not asked, that the housing standards are maintained. It also reawakens the fear that these building societies and building corporations will tend to build, not where the need is greatest, or for the poorer classes of the population, or in the most distressed areas, but rather to go to the more prosperous areas and the better parts and build where they can get higher rents. The fact that municipal competition has been removed from the arena will help them in that. Therefore, I should like the Under-Secretary or the Secretary of State for Scotland, to give some indication of what the hon. Gentleman means when he says that a considerable number of these houses will not be built under the guarantee. Does it mean that the houses will not be built, as I am inclined to fear, where we are hoping that they will be built, and does it mean that there will be no real guarantee for the maintenance of the housing standards of the. people?
In the circular which was recently issued by the Department of Health the suggestion was made that local authorities should hold conferences with the building societies and corporations. Are such conferences now being held, and is progress being made on those lines, and, if so, can the Under-Secretary tell us what has been arranged about rents? Can he tell us whether any schemes have got to the stage at which it is possible to say at what rents the houses which are to be built by the building societies and building corporations will be let? With regard to the housing of the lower-paid wage-earners with the aid of the £3 subsidy, the Under-Secretary tells us that there are something like 100 houses being erected, and that there are some 600 applications for the subsidy. It is very difficult to tell from that what progress is being made, and we shall probably have to wait a few months before we are able to tell. I cannot help thinking that it is useless to point out to the local authorities, as they do in paragraph 20 of the circular of the Department of Health, that the value of the £3 subsidy is even greater than was the £9 subsidy in 1924. For the £9 subsidy in 1924 did not produce the houses at the rents required for the lower-paid workers. We want to be assured that the £3 subsidy will produce houses at the rent laid down in the Act of Parliament of 6s. a week.
The vital question is the cost of the houses. We were glad to hear the assurance of the Under-Secretary of State that the cost still continues to fall, although I saw in the newspapers a day or two ago an ominous reference to the fact that at the conclusion of this Debate the Secretary of State for Scotland was to leave for Glasgow in order to meet the makers of bricks and to discuss the recent rise in the price of bricks. Still, we are all the more grateful for the assurance of the Under-Secretary that the cost has fallen, and is still falling, though the figure he mentioned of £285 as builders' costs alone is a little higher than some of the figures he mentioned in the course of our Debates on the Housing Bill.
With regard to rural houses, the Under-Secretary tells us that in 15 months 3,50.0 new cottages have been approved for reconditioning, and that almost 4,000 improvements have been completed. Is it clear that increasing numbers of houses
are being brought forward for reconditioning? The many figures which I received in the Debates on the Housing Bill and in answer to questions which I put in this House indicated clearly that the tendency on the part of county councils was to contract their obligations under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, and that fewer houses, as the months passed, were being reconditioned,. The figures which the Under-Secretary quoted do not make it clear which way we are moving, and that is really the important point upon which the Committee will need to be satisfied. But more important still, he said nothing about the 8,690 insanitary houses which need to be replaced. He spoke only of the houses which should be reconditioned, but, according to the figures given in reply to a recent question there are 8,690 insanitary houses which need to be replaced, and, if he is going to reply to the Debate, I hope he will tell us what progress is being made in regard to this matter. In their circular the Department say that the immediate need, as regards rural houses, is not so much the provision of new houses as the improvement and reconditioning of existing houses, but there is a need for 8,690 houses to replace insanitary houses which have been condemned in county areas.
As regards the small burghs, I hope that he will tell us what is being done to help them. Their problem is extraordinarily difficult. In any of these small burghs you will find a number of houses condemned as unfit for habitation but the people, being house proud, although living in a house of poor fabric in wretched surroundings, endeavour to keep them as spick and span as possible. In many of these small burghs the cost of a house is not £280 but £380 and the rates are high. In one of them, particularly that of which I am thinking, they are 7s. 3d. in the £, and the yield of a penny rate is only £68. I hope the Under-Secretary will assure us that the difficulties of these small burghs are being very carefully considered.
But the question is, what is the main plan of campaign of the Government under the new powers they have obtained under the present Housing Act? When it was introduced we were told that its main purpose was to concentrate upon slum clearance; and it was unique among all Bills ever discussed in this
House that there was not one word in it about its main purpose. After all, it was no new departure in policy. The policy of the Government, when originally formed in 1931, and the policy put before the conference of local authorities which I addressed as Secretary of State in January of last year, was to concentrate upon slum clearance houses to relieve overcrowding. It is a policy which has yielded the 30,000 houses of which the Under-Secretary has spoken, 4,000 more than the greatest number ever recorded as being built in Scotland, and it was a policy which has yielded the 10,000 houses which have been approved, or were under construction' for slum clearance alone, at the beginning of January.
If this new policy is to be justified, it cannot be by showing that a similar number of houses are being built this year as last year, or by showing that a similar, or slightly greater, number of slum clearance houses are to be built in the coming year as compared with last year. We are entitled to see a very much greater number of slum clearance houses built as a result of the concentration of resources upon the slum clearance problem. The hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. Train) tried to persuade the Committee that the problem of housing was practically solved in Scotland, and that in another two years it would be done. I gave figures, which I will not repeat, on the recent housing Bill showing that if we maintained the rate of building 16,000 houses a year, which we had last year, we should solve the problem in six years. If you take the figures in the report of the Department you will find that the shortage of houses at the end of last year was 53,000. If you take their further figure of 6,100 houses, which are required to meet the needs of the population under the various heads which are explained in the report and to replace the wastage of houses, you will find that in five years it makes a total of 30,500.
That means that during the next five years there will be required to be built, to overtake the shortage and keep abreast of current needs, 83,000 houses. If that calculation, based on the figures given in the report, is correct, you would get in five years, at 16,000 houses a year, 80,000 houses, or within 3,000 of solving the housing problem of Scotland. Therefore, when I asked the Government, as
I did on the Second Reading of the Bill, to announce a five years' plan of operations for solving the housing problem, I was not making any exaggerated demand. It is not true to say that it can be solved in two years, but we can solve it in five years by a determined effort. My idea of a five years plan has been adopted by the English Minister of Health but not by the Scottish Department. It is not for me to discuss the announcement made by the Minister of Health that they are going to solve the problem in England in five years. I think it is quite out of the question, and I would never have suggested it as regards England and Wales, but I think that in Scotland we certainly could solve it in five years; and I am sorry to say that we seem to be lagging behind a little.
The Secretary of State made a speech the other day which was more remarkable for the satisfaction he expressed in regard to past achievements than for any clear indication of his plans for the future. Let me make my own position clear. I realise that it is a matter of Cabinet policy, but could not they persuade the Government to make this great effort now on the basis of cheap money? If they would tackle the housing problem in Scotland with a view to solving it in five years, they would have this Committee, the House of Commons and all local authorities in Scotland behind them. It would be in accordance with the policy declared by the Prime Minister in his conversations with Mr. Roosevelt, using the cheap money we have now to finance public works. It would provide us with permanent assets, which would raise the standards of life of the nation, and give an impetus to the industrial revival of Scotland which is so much needed at this moment. I hope that the last word of the Secretary of State has not been said in this somewhat jejune and belated circular issued during the last few weeks, but that we shall have a call to action in which he will be supported by men and women of all parties in this House and in local authorities in Scotland.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. McGOVERN: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.
In connection with the health problems which have arisen in Scotland among a large section of the people I desire to
call the attention of the Committee to the disgraceful conduct of the Secretary of State in refusing to meet a deputation of the people who desired to place before him a large number of anomalies which have resulted from the Government's economy scheme. I want to say at the outset that the Secretary of State was made aware six weeks ago of what is termed the hunger-march of unemployed men and women from various parts of Scotland, who were prepared to come before him with a number of demands and draw his attention to a number of anomalies arising in connection with health problems. I know that I am not at liberty to detail the schemes of work which were going to be proposed, but we desired the attention of the Secretary of State in order to place before him these anomalies. I am in a happier position that these unfortunate men and women, because I can come to the House of Commons and place before them these anomalies and injustices and ask for certain adjustments and modifications, and also that the administration should be more humane in many respects. When the Secretary of State was made aware that a body of men and women were asking to meet him in Edinburgh, the capital of Scotland, in order to place before him these problems, I think in all decency he might have been prepared to meet them and hear their complaints.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): I think I must warn the hon. Member that the salary of the Secretary of State for Scotland is not now before the Committee, but, so far as he has any complaint to make against the right hon. Gentleman in the matter of housing or any other administration under the Department of Health, he is in order.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Will the hon. Member explain what this deputation was, and whom it represented?

Mr. McGOVERN: I am aware that the salary of the Secretary of State is not involved in this Vote, and we hope that before the evening is over an opportunity will be given, by a Division on his salary, to show our dissent from his conduct in connection with the administration of Poor Law relief, housing, child welfare and health services generally. I want to place before the Committee the case which, as one of the deputation, I placed
before the Department of Health in Edinburgh. I do not seek to take advantage of this opportunity to do anything more than present what I believe to be legitimate demands. I have said that the Secretary of State was made aware that a number of these problems would be discussed, and that men and women from all parts of Scotland were coming to Edinburgh to place before him their legitimate demands.
The Government recently passed a series of measures imposing economies which involve grave hardship on a large body of men, women and children in this country. A man who invents a new engine or a new machine is generally interested in its working, and has reports from day to day as to its effects, and the same thing ought to apply to the drastic economy measures passed by the Government. The members of the Government ought to be available to hear at first hand the evidence of the effects of their economies upon the health and well-being of the people. I suggest that Members of this Committee are not in a position to give the Government, at first hand,. details of the effects of these economies. Such information can only come directly from the men and women who are compelled to exist under these economy measures.
In this case the Secretary of State for Scotland might have been more tactful, more humane and more intelligent. Even from the representative or constitutional point of view, he ought to be available in Edinburgh to meet representative deputations of Scottish people who are prepared to place such evidence before him. But the curt note which was sent to the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) in connection with this matter bordered on the insulting in its character. It was a brief, curt refusal, and the right hon. Gentleman also knew that I was one of the deputation which proposed to meet him. A few weeks ago I was invited by the senior Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan) to join him in a drawing-room at Edinburgh. No doubt, on that occasion my company would have been acceptable to the authorities of Edinburgh and the Scottish Office. When you associate with those who are in a drawing-room, it is all right, but when you associate with those who are in the gutter, you become an outlaw and an outcast, treated with contempt and ridicule
by all responsible sections of the Government of this country.
I must enter a very serious protest against the action of the public assistance authorities and others in Edinburgh. They dealt with the problems arising in connection with the Poor Law in what I believe is an illegal and is certainly a very high-handed manner. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Major Sir A. Sinclair) asked who the deputation represented. It was a deputation of the hunger marchers, a body of 1,000 men and women, all of whom, I believe, were unemployed with the exception of myself. These men and women believed that before there was any Governmental action to modify the cuts from which they had suffered it would be necessary to show that they had an organisation behind them and that there was a solid body of opinion, which was both modest and humane, in support of their demands. The organisation was the National Unemployed Workers Movement. In it there are Communists and men who belong to the same body as myself, namely, the Independent Labour party also men who belong to the Labour party, to the trade unions and to the co-operative societies. There are in it men of all parties and men of no party. There are in it Liberals and Tories who voted for the National Government. The deputation was representative and it desired to place before the right hon. Gentleman certain facts and certain proposals as to what they believed ought to be done, in order that they might have a little more decency and comfort in their lives.
The Secretary of State repeatedly refused to meet them, but when the men were on the march, they received from the Department of Health, the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Education telegrams offering to meet them and to discuss these questions with them in Edinburgh. Following on the refusal of the Secretary of State for Scotland to receive the deputation, to put up, robots at the last minute to hear the demands of these people—to put up men who could not give to the right hon. Gentleman first hand knowledge of the truth of the representations that were being made —was, in my opinion, disgraceful. Such action does not in my estimation repre-
sent the views of a large mass of the people of this country who believe that rich and poor alike have a right to be treated with common decency and to have their representations heard in the proper quarters. Action of that kind reduces the constitution of this country to a farce and tends to show working men and women that they have no opportunity of making effective representations to those in authority. The right hon. Gentleman may reply that his predecessor, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland also refused to meet such a deputation. He may say, and I do not know whether it is true or not, that the Labour Government refused to meet such a deputation, but I hope there is going to be an end of that sort of hiding behind the bush. I hope that men are going to stand on their own legs and defend their own actions without seeking to find previous decisions to reinforce their views.
When the present Secretary of State for Scotland was appointed, the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) said that he believed the right hon. Gentleman to be a cold, cruel and callous man. In my own mind at that time I dissented from that view. I am always prepared to take people as I find them, and I was prepared to bide my time and to see how the right hon. Gentleman would turn out as Secretary of State. From my experience in connection with one or two smaller questions and on the larger issues concerning the health of our people, I have come to the conclusion, seriously on reflection, that the statement of the hon. Member for Gorbals was not an outrageous one, and that the Secretary of State is either a cold, cruel and callous man or is a man without courage and is afraid to make decisions that might not be popular in certain quarters.
This deputation which I have described went to Edinburgh and was heard at the Department of Health. I only propose to deal with some of the proposals which were put forward at that time. There was a question which had been agitating the minds of a considerable number of unemployed people who, by sickness or accident, are drawing money from the Poor Law. That was the question of the 7s. 6d. of National Health Insurance benefit to which they are entitled under the 1921 or 1922 Act for extra nourishment in the period during
which they are drawing Poor Law relief. That is a little extra to which they are entitled independent of the scales of benefit. In a number of districts that provision is not being operated, and I wish to ask the Secretary of State what he intends to do in that matter? In Glasgow that provision is being evaded in practically every case. In one or two places where we have made representations from time to time we have managed to get the authorities to put it into operation. If the Secretary of State is not prepared to see that the law is put into operation in that respect, he can only expect organised working-class opinion to believe that he is prepared to come down on areas where they are supposed to pay too high a scale—such as Coatbridge, where we understand there is a threat to put in Commissioners—and to refuse to take action in cases where the local authority pays on too low a scale or refuses to act up to its obligations.
There was also the question of medical benefit for the unemployed. Many of these people have been unemployed for a long period of time. They include young men who are thirsting for honest toil and who are anxious to get back a sense of manhood and a sense of decency. These people feel that everything is being gradually taken away from them. They now see their health benefits going and I ask the right hon. Gentleman what he intends to do in connection with the problem which the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) has brought to his notice. I wish to direct his attention to another case. The Department of Health intervened when the Glasgow Corporation—a Tory corporation—decided unanimously last Christmas on the representation of various bodies in the city, to give the unemployed, for the sake of the children, a little extra during the Christmas and New Year weeks. It was proposed to give an additional 1s. 6d. a week for each child, but the Department of Health for Scotland declared it to be illegal. I challenge that decision. The Govan authority, prior to the taking over of public assistance by the Glasgow Corporation, paid this extra 1s. 6d. a week for a considerable time. Each week they had given 3s. 6d. for each child to those on able-bodied and Poor Law relief and not specially in connection with Christmas or New Year. Did the Secretary of State instruct the Department to inter-
vene and to refuse the extra allowance for that fortnight, which was proposed in order that the children of the unemployed might have a little more at a time when people go to excess in enjoyment in other quarters?
In Glasgow, in connection with Poor Law relief and with ordinary able-bodied relief on the Poor Law side, the authority has power from time to time to assist people who are in danger of eviction from their homes by giving what are termed rent grants. In Glasgow these are paid out of the ordinary Poor Law and public assistance relief. One of the demands made in Edinburgh was that these rent grants should be extended to other areas throughout Scotland; that the right hon. Gentleman should use what powers of persuasion he possesses and draw the attention of other authorities to the fact that these grants in Glasgow had been instrumental in saving, at very small cost, a considerable number of people who would otherwise have been evicted from their homes, thus adding to overcrowding in the city. It was suggested that other authorities might profit by the experience of Glasgow in this respect.
There is also the question of parish settlements, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman is taking note of all these points, because I would like definite answers to them. There has been too much evasion in connection with these matters. I have raised the question of parish settlements each year since I have been here, first under the Labour Government, who, at that time, were to convene area conferences with a view to getting some standardised benefit. Take the question of a widow residing in Glasgow and drawing Poor Law relief. She may be drawing for herself and two children the sum of 22s., but the Glasgow scale may be 32s. or 34s. There may be 10s. or 12s. difference between families placed in similar circumstances and living next door to one another. This parish settlement is a bugbear in connection with Poor Law relief, and I do not believe that it is any great advantage to any area in Scotland. I think the time has come, with the development of poverty and distress, when we might eliminate the idea of parish settlements entirely from Poor Law relief administration as we have eliminated it in regard to unemployment benefit. It does not affect a
tremendous number of people, but it is a great hardship to have half-a-dozen people in the same area all being paid on different scales. It is something that an enlightened society should not tolerate. Either that or the individual coming in from an outer area ought to be paid the scale of the new parish.
The hon. Member for Bridgeton says also that it is a considerable expense. I agree, and it is a worry as well to the Poor Law inspectors, because when an applicant makes application for, say, a pair of boots for a child at school, they cannot grant them without the consent of the outer parish. They can give them to the people in their own area at once, but when it comes to an outer area, they have to write, and there has to be a letter coming back, stating that the public assistance committee would not meet for a week, or in some cases, in the smaller areas, for a fortnight, and that therefore in due course they would let them know the decision. It may be that a month elapses before any decision is given, and here we have a child, during winter weather, having to go about with boots that cannot hold out the wet, or its mother being obliged to keep it away from school for that period. I suggest in all sincerity that while the representatives of the Scottish Office in the Government cannot bring about great modifications and changes in national policy, there are ways in which this trouble could be overcome and this anomaly wiped out.
The other demands that were put forward in Edinburgh I cannot touch upon, because they have to do with the Minister of Labour and the Board of Education, but schemes were placed before them that the Secretary of State for Scotland may analyse in order to see what is in them. In connection with the hunger march, on the Tuesday of that hunger march we found that 1,000 men and women were practically on the verge of being without food and were, to all intents land purposes, destitute. We went along to the representative of the public assistance department in Edinburgh, Mr. Douglas, who, I understand, is a deputy, and we asked him to accept from these 1,000 men and women applications for Poor Law relief, as they were then destitute. The officer stated that the town clerk was discussing the ques-
tion of the transport of the men, and he asked us to delay making the applications until later in the evening. When negotiations broke down, he refused those applications for Poor Law relief, and we had the position of 1,000 people being refused by the authorities any accommodation and being compelled to sleep in—

Sir SAMUEL CHAPMAN: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member in order in raising this question, and, if so, shall we be entitled to give the exact action which the local authorities took on this matter?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am in a little difficulty in this matter, because I am not familiar with the incident in question, but as I understood the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), he was complaining of an officer whom I understood to be an officer of the Scottish Board of Health. If that be the case, the hon. Member is in order, but he cannot make a complaint against the Corporation of Edinburgh on this occasion.

Mr. McGOVERN: I can raise a complaint against a Poor Law official who refuses to take an application for Poor Law relief from destitute people, and I can ask the right hon. Gentleman to inquire into what I believe to be an illegal action. If the hon. Member opposite wants to say anything afterwards, I shall be delighted to listen to him. This officer stated that the town clerk had told him that there was a limit to what he might be expected to do and that he could not take applications that evening; and for 25 hours he refused to accept any application for Poor Law relief at all. I then rang up the Department of Health, and—

Mr. SKELTON: On a point of Order. If the hon. Member is still talking about the action of Mr. Douglas, I am informed that Mr. Douglas is an official of the Corporation of Edinburgh.

Mr. McGOVERN: Yes, but he is administering health, and while the Department of Health could not compel him to take action or to take the applications, they certainly did remind him of his duty.

Sir S. CHAPMAN: May a Member of the City of Edinburgh defend the
Corporation of the city if the Secretary of State is not in a position to do it officially?

Mr. MAXTON: Edinburgh must take its chance with the rest.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): Every hon. Member may rest assured that I will answer fully every criticism and every point of view at the proper time before the Debate closes this evening.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think I had better reply to the point of Order. As I understand the hon. Member for Shettleston, he is raising a complaint that the Scottish Department of Health have not inquired into an action of an official of the Corporation of Edinburgh, which, the hon. Member says, is not within the official's legal power. Whether that be right or not, the position of the official is not before the Committee, and I cannot say whether or not the official's action was in accordance with the law of Scotland, but I must say that the hon. Member is entitled to ask whether the Department of Health did investigate or will investigate the official's action.

Mr. McGOVERN: That is really the point.

Sir G. COLLINS: At the beginning of the Debate to-day it was understood that my salary would come under review and would be put from the Chair, and that all these matters would be fully debated by hon. Members and an opportunity given to me to reply. I rise for the purpose of asking whether it would not be convenient to the hon. Member and to his cause, and to the Committee generally, to give me an opportunity, on the Vote for my own salary, of refuting or replying to every argument that might be addressed to the Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN: I am willing to be as fair as possible in connection with any legitimate attack. I wanted to deal with the question in connection with its effect upon public health and the demands that were made by this deputation in Edinburgh. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton will deal with the personal matter, I have no doubt, fairly effectively later on, and an opportunity will be given for the right hon. Gentleman to answer any criticisms, and I shall be delighted to hear any reply. I am speaking what
I believe to be the minds of those with whom I was associated in the march, and I am bound to express what I believe to be their opinion as well as my own opinion. I telephoned to the Department of Health and drew their attention to the fact that Mr. Douglas refused to accept applications for Poor Law relief from people who were destitute, and the Department told me that there was a duty on the public assistance officer to take applications from destitute people. They said that it did not exactly mean that they must deal with them in any way we desired, but they must take them and investigate them with a view to dealing with them, if the people were destitute. The Department of Health reminded me of that, but they said that they would ring up the public assistance officer and remind him of his duty.
They afterwards informed me, again by telephone, that they had notified Mr. Douglas that he must take these applications for Poor Law relief from destitute people, and that he had stated that the town clerk had instructed him that he did not require to take them, whereupon the departmental chief at the Department of Health informed him that the town clerk could not shoulder the responsibility, that he was the officer who had the responsibility, and that there was a case in point in Scotland where, on the refusal to take an application for Poor Law relief, the individual who desired to apply had died, and the public assistance officer had been placed in court on a charge of manslaughter. Immediately then they offered to take the applications for Poor Law relief, on being advised of their duty. I have no fault to find with the Department of Health, but—

Sir G. COLLINS: What date was that?

Mr. McGOVERN: Last Tuesday, at a quarter to three, we informed them that the men and women were destitute, and at about the same hour or near 4 o'clock on the Wednesday they were prepared then to take the applications—a matter of 25 hours after they had been asked to accept the applications. I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, after investigation—I do not expect a complete answer to-day—that he should, for future reference, give me his reply to what I believe to be an evasion of a public duty by one of the representatives
of the public assistance committees in Edinburgh. The Under-Secretary dealt with the report and elaborated the various statements in it in his usual genial way, but as one who is concerned with the welfare of the people of Scotland and in general with the people of the whole country, I cannot say that I am satisfied with this report from any angle.
I thought that the Under-Secretary took too much pride in believing that there had been a great step forward towards the solution of the housing problem. The dimensions of the housing problem can best be estimated if it is realised that in Glasgow, according to a reply to a question which I put last week, there are between 80,000 and 90,000 applications for houses in the Housing Department, and that it has been decided for a few months to stop taking further applications. I do not say that the whole of those who have made applications are houseless; a number are newly married people, but we have a certain section living in overcrowded conditions and others who have no houses. On a rough estimate, there are in Glasgow, 40,000 people who desire houses who are living in rooms and with friends where there are two or three families to one house. That is a scandalous state of affairs. When the National Government can say that they have a five-year plan and agree that there are in Scotland so many people living in overcroweded conditions and so many people who have no houses, and that 120,000 houses are required; and when they agree that the wastage and the ordinary increase in demand for houses bring that number up to 200,000 and they make plans for the erection of that number in five years, I will say that they are dealing with the problem in a statesmanlike and humane way. There is plenty of land, labour, materials and money, and everything that is required for the construction of houses, but the Government are not getting on with the job in the serious way that the problem demands.
We were told that in 1919 there was a shortage of something like 131,000 houses. In the 11 years up to 1930 134,717 were erected, so that only 3,000 odd more were erected in the 11 years than were required in 1919. That is not the way to deal with the situation. The
Under-Secretary, in reply to a question, informed me that the Health Committee of Glasgow have notified to the housing department 2,000 cases of families which contain one or two people suffering from tuberculosis. I had at my door on Monday night a father with eight children and one expected. If that child is born and lives, there will be 11 persons in a single-apartment house. One of the children was two years and eight months in a hospital, and was discharged almost uncured. A state of affairs of that description is bordering on an uncivilised state of the worst kind. Two thousand people are spreading that disease to other members of their families, and no serious attempt is being made to eliminate it. if the Government want to eliminate disease, there is an opportunity to help by taking these 2,000 families out of their overcrowded conditions. That should be done not only from the humane point of view, but from the point of view of economy, for it would prevent the piling up of a huge expenditure in years to come.
I know of another case of a woman living up three storeys in a single-apartment house who had her leg amputated because of tuberculosis. Her son is also in hospital with the disease. There are five children under 14 and the husband. For two and a-half years I have been trying to get that family a slum clearance house. The man is unemployed, and the woman is unable to come downstairs because of her condition. These cases can be multiplied throughout the industrial areas, and no serious attempt is being made to deal with them. While the Under-Secretary knows that that state of affairs exists, it is no use throwing out his chest in pride and telling the country that the problem is being dealt with in a serious way. The health committees, the housing committees and the sanitary committees of local authorities are co-operating in refusing to condemn uninhabitable houses because the housing departments have not the houses to give to the people. A great deal of further inquiry and more stimulus and power are required by the Secretary of State if this problem is to be overcome.
I want to deal with the question of the means test as applied to the tenants of houses. The Under-Secretary said that in Aberdeen 70 people, on the mere decision to apply the means test or to make
inquiries, vacated their houses, and that these houses would now be available for other persons with a greater right to them. There are Members of the Labour party and of the Scottish Socialist party and trade unions who agree to the application of the means test for housing. The Labour party are bound by the other means test and the Anomalies Act, for they have all along the line surrendered to capitalism without any adequate defence of the working-class. I could have understood them if they said that a man with £500 a year was not a fit subject for a subsidised house, but if the whole of the income coming into the home is to be taken into consideration, it is an outrageous thing. I might be prepared to exclude from these houses a man with an income of £500 a year, but I should only be prepared to agree to that if it was guaranteed that those who cannot pay the present rental through cuts in wages and salaries should have their rentals lowered. I live in a housing estate where there are over 2,000 tenants. I am pestered morning, noon and night when I am at home by people who want to get out of these houses because, owing to adverse circumstances, they are unable to meet their obligations. The type of four-apartment house that was built in 1923 cost £800 as against £400 to-day, and the money was borrowed then at 6 per cent. as against 4 per cent. to-day.
The cost of money, building and repairs has gone down considerably, and you are not entitled to expect the same return from the 1923 houses as you got when they were built. If I had a stock of goods in a warehouse, I could not keep them from 1923 until now and get 1923 prices. The position of a large number of people has gone down through their wages and family income having been reduced. If you fix a means test for the tenants, you may discover that a large proportion of the people will want to get out of the houses, and you will be left with houses which no other part of the population can afford to rent. This attempt to have the means test in connection with houses is madness. It is the National Government gone mad over the means test. No doubt they got the cue from the previous Labour Government how to do these things, but I suggest that they might modify their attitude and get rid of it. Antagonism will develop from a political point of view, for most of those who will be affected by
the means test are people who voted for the National Government.
The means test should be eliminated altogether, but if you are going to deal with it in a proper way, and deal with the man with too great an income, you must deal also with the man with too small an income. Not enough is being done in housing, and a large section of the people have no opportunity to live in a decent manner. A good house is a great thing in life, for the women and children have perforce to live most of their time in the home. I urge the Department to stimulate house building by every means in their power. Above all, I would urge it to see that something is done to relieve the position of overcrowded families and those who are unfortunate enough to have members in the family suffering from disease, such as tuberculosis.

7.0 p.m.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Before I put the reduction, the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) has made a serious charge against the Secretary of State for Scotland. I understand it is desired that the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) should bring forward certain aspects of that charge which would not be in order on this Vote. I would suggest that it might be for the convenience of the Committee—I have no power to dictate to them—that the Secretary of State might answer the whole of the charge on the question of his salary, if the Committee will undertake to give the Secretary of State sufficient time in which to answer. It is not likely to be satisfactory if the Secretary of State replies to the half of the charge made by the hon. Member for Shettleston and, later on, has to reply to the other half of the charge, arising from the same occurrence, which is to be raised by the hon. Member for Bridgeton. I leave the suggestion to the Committee that they should see that the Secretary of State is able to reply.

Sir G. COLLINS: It occurs to me that it would be very suitable if I had an opportunity to reply not only to the points put by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), but to any other points which the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) might desire to put at a later stage. If the hon. Members agree with the suggestion made by
you, Captain Bourne, I shall be happy to fall into line with it.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: The arrangement is perfectly satisfactory to me, but we all know that neither my hon. Friend nor I have complete control over how the Debate is going to run. There are many hon. Members who desire to take part in the discussion on this Health Vote, and there are others who wish to take part in the discussion on the Education Vote. It might quite well be that Eleven o'clock would be reached before there was an opportunity of dealing in any extended way with the question of the Minister's conduct in the reception of the hunger marchers, and his treatment of our own representation. If there were no time, I would add nothing to what has already been said by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) and would content myself with merely having a Division on the salary question. On behalf of my hon. Friend I agree, so far as we are concerned. Without hampering the discussions of the Committee, we are prepared to allow the Secretary of State ample time.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think such an arrangement would generally be for the convenience of the Committee, but it can only be carried out by hon. Members, perhaps at some sacrifice to themselves, allowing sufficient time for the Secretary of State's salary to be discussed.

7.4 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel C. MacANDREW: I should like, first of all, to associate myself with the congratulations given to the Under-Secretary of State for his very clear speech, and for his explanation of the report of the Department of Health. He dealt with the points very clearly indeed, but there are one or two matters I would like to bring to the notice of the Committee. Dealing with the maternity and child health services, the Under-Secretary of State explained how the health of the children varied as we went further North; how the tendency was, as we went further North, for health to be rather worse. That is very likely so, but I do not think it is an explanation of the fact that last year the infant mortality, at 86 per 1,000, is four above
the rate for the previous year, and one above the average for the preceding five years. The increase is not very great, but. I think it is a serious matter, and something which wants to be taken into consideration immediately. What, to my mind, as a Glasgow Member, makes it more serious, is that, if one examines the position of the four cities, one sees that in 1932, as far as Glasgow was concerned, the rate compared with 1931 had risen from 104 to 112. Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen have a very much better showing than Glasgow, and I do hope that the Under-Secretary of State will use his influence to see what can be done with regard to infant mortality in Glasgow. One would have hoped that the figures, instead of getting larger, would have got smaller. The present position, therefore, is somewhat disappointing.
The other point I want to speak about is maternal mortality. The Under-Secretary said that it was a phenomenon. That is true, but it is very disappointing, when we look back over 30 years, and see from 1895 to 1904 that the rate was 4.6. It it worse. Last year it has risen to 6.4. The Scientific Advisory Committee will reach the end of its six months in the middle of this month, and they will be making their report soon. I hope the Under-Secretary will get their report put forward as soon as possible, because this is a matter which requires urgent attention. In the report we see that the corresponding rate for England and Wales was less than for Scotland. Whether maternal mortality, apparently like infant mortality, is governed by the colder weather and change of climate, I doubt. We have every reason to expect that maternal mortality in Scotland should be no greater than in England and Wales. I do hope that the Under-Secretary will give this matter his urgent attention. These two questions are of urgent and vital importance, and of great interest to the people of Scotland.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. DAVID MASON: I wish to emphasise a point touched upon by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), and originally put by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham), with reference to the benefits of the unemployed coming to an end under the National Health Insurance Act. That Act provides that persons after a period of
continuous unemployment cease on 31st December to be entitled to medical benefit, although they will retain for two years further their rights with regard to pension. This is an important point, which raises a great deal of unrest in the city of Edinburgh. I believe it involves something like 20,000 people in Scotland, and 100,000 people all told. The cost of continuing this benefit would not amount to more than £12,000. I cannot speak of prospective legislation, but only of grievances. I wish to emphasise what has been said by the hon. Member for Hamilton and the hon. Member for Shettleston, that it seems in the interests of the well-being of the people unwise that these benefits should cease. It is very unfair on these poor people and, in the interests of the health of the community, they should not be cut off. I hope the Under-Secretary of State will make a note of this, and of the very strong feeling that something should be done to provide for these benefits being continued.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. BURNETT: I must confess that I cannot agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) or with the comments he made upon the report. My hon. Friend is to be very sincerely congratulated on the report, particularly upon the housing section of it. To be able to show that the number of houses completed during the year has increased by nearly 50 per cent. on the year before; that the houses under construction are nearly 60 per cent. ahead of what they were the year before; that the houses for which sanction has been given by the local authorities, and not yet commenced, are also nearly 50 per cent. ahead, must be an experience which does not very often fall to a Minister in submitting his report. That the tender prices have reached the lowest level since 1914 is also, I think, an encouraging sign. As to the cost of building, the Under-Secretary of State was able to say that the average cost of the houses had gone down from £300 to £280. With all that, and with the advantage of cheap money being available for building, the prospects before housing are much brighter now than they have been for some time.
Regarding the 1924 Act, I do not think I can go quite so far as the hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. Train) went when he said that we were rapidly catching up
with the situation, and that within about three years we were likely to be in a position to overtake overcrowding and the mixture of sexes question. I think we are still a good long way from that, and the report bears out that view. It says that information furnished by the local authorities makes it clear that there is still, in most districts, a decided need for houses, apart from those houses needed to replace uninhabitable houses. I think I would put it at more than a decided need. I know best the circumstances in the area I represent, and there I learn from a report published yesterday that there are still 964 applicants on the waiting list for houses—all are either overcrowding or mixture of the sexes cases. There were still cases in which we had as many as 8½ adults and 6½ adults overcrowded, and something like 750 where there were three adults or fewer overcrowded. That is a serious matter, and raises the question, which has been considered by our local authority, whether the cut in the subsidy is not rather too drastic. It is satisfactory to know that with the £3 subsidy we are to have so many houses as my hon. Friend has already mentioned, but we want to know that the cost of building will not go up, that with this rush in slum clearance and in house building there may not be an increase in costs similar to that which came after the War. We do not want to ge beyond what we can do, and slum clearance is the most urgent matter.
A question which I did not intend to touch upon but which my hon. Friend raised concerns the means test. I stated my opinion on it on a former occasion on the Adjournment of the House, when I said that I was not in favour of people with large means occupying cheap houses at the expense either of the State or of the local rates; but I also said that I did not think that that was exactly the case which arose. The subsidy being paid for the house is a subsidy which had to be provided after the War in consequence of the very high building costs prevailing then. It went towards the high wages then paid and the cost of materials, and the people who are living in those houses are not getting more than they were getting in a pre-war house, except that they now have a bath room; but they get thin walls and frequently the houses are damp, and there have been many complaints about them. I do not
want to pursue this matter further, because it has been more or less settled, but I thought at the time that the questionnaire in the form in which it was sent out was unwise, and that it was very unfortunate that notices of eviction were sent to all tenants who did not answer it immediately.
To raise a man's rent because he happens to be earning more money is wrong, I think, and in such a differentiation in rents a town council may find difficulties arising where a man and his neighbour are living in exactly similar houses and one is being charged £5 more than the other. If we go in for raising the rents of the people with larger incomes it may bring up the question of reducing rents when a person is out of employment. Anyway, it is an encouraging sign to see building going on. Small bungalows are now being occupied by the higher-paid workers. A large number of such bungalows are springing up. Each one sets a house free, that in turn sets free another house, and so the circulation goes on, and, by this process of decanting, overcrowding is being dealt with, though we have yet a long way to go.
The chief question which I wish to raise concerns the pensions of blind persons. Many subjects arise on the report of the Department of Health, and the welfare of the blind, which is dealt with in Chapter 11, is a very important question. I do not think we can realise fully the difficulties against which the blind have to struggle. Our sympathy goes out to them in large measure, and we knew something of their disabilities, of that curtain which seems to separate them from the occupations and amusements of the rest of mankind. But we know at the same time that there are persons who have been able to rise superior to their disablement. The names of many great men who were blind rise in our minds, like the poet Milton and, among musicians, Handel. In administrative work, too, many blind persons with a powerful personality have been able to raise themselves to high positions, which they have held with great distinction. That is a strong reason why we should do all we can towards training and providing technical education for the blind.
It is a wonderful work which is described in Chapter 11. The Consultative
Council gives advice as to how training can best be provided and how employment can be found at the end of the training. This is a subject which is comparatively new. Before the War very little was done by either the State or the municipalities to help the blind It was the War, really, which first brought home to our people the magnitude of this problem, and made us realise our duties and responsibilities as citizens and as a nation. The training of disabled men, and particularly the noble work done at St. Dunstan's, opened the eyes of the public, and they saw that they had this duty not only towards blind soldiers but to blind people generally. For the most part blindness does not arise through the fault of the persons afflicted. In some cases they are blind because their parents married, although they should never have been allowed to marry. In other cases they are blind from neglect at birth, and in other cases blindness is the result of accident. A big responsibility rests upon the State to see that education is given to these people so that they may have a real chance in life. The question was first studied by the Departmental Committee in 1917, and it resulted in the Blind Persons Act of 1920, which provided on the one side that training should be given and on the other that if men were not capable of being trained or were over 50 years of age blind pensions should be given to them on the same conditions as old age pensions.
The question of blind pensions arises here. I notice that in the Estimates for the coming year there is a reduction in the grant which is to go to the National Health Insurance Fund from £663,000 to £634,000, a decrease of £29,000. I do not know whether that means that there has been a certain reduction in the grant. This is a matter on which I put some questions in the House a few days ago. I asked the number of awards and withdrawals of blind pensions which had been made in Scotland, and received figures which show that in the last year there was a reduction of 69 in the blind pensions awarded. In reply to another question I received information as regards appeals sent up from the pensions committees. In 1932 the number of appeals by the pension officer to the Department of Health for Scotland against the decisions of local committees to continue blind pensions was 39, and the Department dis-
allowed the pensions in all those cases. As regards new claims, the number of appeals by the pension officer in 1932 was 59, and in 30 of those cases the Department allowed the pension and disallowed pensions in 26 cases. It would appear as though there had been some tightening up in connection with pension cases.
The definition of blindness is a very difficult one. It was considered by the Committee in 1917, and the definition of blind persons which was adopted there was:
So blind as to be unable to perform any work for which eyesight is essential.
In Chapter 11 of the report this year it states that up to 1931 a comparatively stable position had been reached and that in 1932 the Department were mainly concerned with matters bearing on the consolidation of the position gained. I do not very much care for the words, "consolidation of the position gained." It sounds as though we were consolidating against someone, which is not the case. But I would like to know whether there is a change of policy in this matter because there is no question that a large number of people have been cut off pension during the year. In Aberdeen, I am told, there were 20 appeals and 19 persons were cut off, and that in Dundee the pensions of 30 persons were discontinued.
I came across the case of a man whom I have known for two or three years. He was a blacksmith and had been drawing a blind pension. His panel doctor certified that he was unable to follow his usual occupation of a blacksmith because of loss of vision. In his right eye frontal vision is nil—he suffers from an affection of the vitreous—-and with his left eye he has no distant vision and can distinguish fingers only when they are held very close. Surely that man is not able to follow an occupation. His case was recommended by the local pensions committee. The committee consists of members of the town council, and also of employers and employés. I know that they consider these cases very carefully, and try to comply with the definition contained in the Act as closely as possible. I was a member of a committee and know that they endeavour to find out whether a man can do the work for which eyesight is essential. They see the applicant and examine him. As I have said, this case was recommended by the pensions committee, but it was refused.
I have written to the Board of Health about it, and also to the Scottish Office, but I cannot get the case taken up. It is hard on a man that there should be no appeal from the medical board. He is examined by two doctors, who are the independent clinic, and from them there is practically no appeal. There is no further medical examination. The recommendation of the sub-committee of the 1917 committee was that there should be a medical assessor or inspector. It is contained in the report. There is no opportunity for this man, if he is turned down by the doctors, to have further medical examination. This is a matter which should be remedied, and I should like to have a reply from the Under-Secretary or whoever is to speak later for the Government. It seems hard that a man who has been drawing blind pension should be turned down and condemned, without any hope of reprieve, or any further medical examination.

7.31 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I conceived it to be my duty yesterday to draw hon. Members' attention to the fact that no member of the Scottish Office had been present during the most important Debate that has taken place in this House this year, upon the subject of unemployment. It is my duty now to take this opportunity on behalf of my colleagues, who went as a deputation to the Secretary of State for Scotland, who very readily agreed to give us this day to discuss Scottish business, to pay our tribute to the right hon. Gentleman. I want to say that I think that the Secretary of State for Scotland made a very serious mistake in not receiving the hunger marchers in Edinburgh. Two years ago, I got the present Prime Minister to receive the unemployed at Downing Street. The conditions of these men and women are much worse to-day than they were two years ago, and they are getting worse as the days go by. Those who are organising the unemployed have tried every local authority in the districts to which they belong, and we have told those hunger marchers that the question is not a local one, but one that ought to be dealt with nationally.
Taking us at our word, the hunger marchers naturally went to the Secretary of State for Scotland. He turned them down. That was anything but a commendable act on his part, he who, in all
our personal negotiations with him, has always been prepared to meet us if it was humanly possible. The fact that we obtained this day from him, when he had not received his Estimates, shows that. He said that he was not sure, but that if it was possible, and he got his Estimates, we should have our day. We got it. When he meets our requests in that fashion, it was not asking too much that he should see men and women who are right up against it in no uncertain fashion, and, as it was well put by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), are down in the gutter. As Robert Burns wrote:
See yonder poor o'er-labour'd wight,
So abject, mean, and vile,
Who begs a brother of the earth
To give him leave to toil;
And see his lordly fellow-worm
The poor petition spurn,
Unmindful tho' a weepin' wife
And helpless offspring mourn.
That is what the Secretary of State for Scotland did. He placed himself in that position, in the position of
…Man, proud man!
Drest in a little brief authority,
Most ignorant of what he's most assured
Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven,
As make the angels weep.
We await with interest the reply of the Secretary of State for Scotland to the hon. Member for Shettleston.
Let me turn to the subjects of housing, health and education which we arranged should be brought before the Committee to-night. I am glad that the Under-Secretary is here in person. The matter I first wish to raise is one in which he is implicated with that brilliant engineer, the right hon. and gallant Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair), who has told us of the things that have happened since he left the Government. He was in the Government with the present Under-Secretary, and we took him at his word when he said that he was anxious to meet the demands of the people of Scotland, in regard to overcrowding and slum clearance. We have heard him expatiating here again to-day. When Clydebank approached the Clydebank Town Council, the latter, by a unanimous vote, decided they would go in for building more houses, because of overcrowding, but the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the
Member for Caithness turned them down. The chief reason that I was able to extract from the Scottish Office at that time was that trade was bad and that folk were leaving Clydebank, and that therefore it would be bad business to go on with housing. That was a statement of fact and I could not dispute it. The Minister of Labour is now making capital out of the fact that there are 3,000 men—not boys—employed in Clydebank to-day who were not employed there in February last year: when we again approach the Scottish Office, I hope that the Under-Secretary will use his tremendous influence with the Secretary of State for Scotland to grant us the power to go ahead with the building of the houses that we require to counteract overcrowding in Clydebank.
The next subject is one that I have already put in the form of a question. When I came in to-day, in the midst of the Under-Secretary's speech, I intervened. I was sorry to do it, because I know how difficult it is when anyone intervenes in the middle of my speeches. I appreciated the manner in which the Under-Secretary treated my request, and I explained why I was not here at the time. In Dumbarton and Clydebank we want more houses. We are up against the position, that the people are not able to pay the rents that are demanded for the houses. We take the folk from overcrowded conditions, in which they are co-operating to pay the rent. Their room and kitchen is the only place where there is a fire. They cannot afford to have a fire in their room and the fire in the old-fashioned room and kitchen did all the cooking. In the new houses, of which I approve, the fireplace does not enable folk to cook. A gas cooker, or an electric cooker, is put in, of which again I am in favour; but that all means more expense. The rent is double what they paid in their overcrowded place, and no provision is made to enable them to pay the extra rent or to pay for the modern conveniences. The only way in which they can pay is to put less food into their stomachs. They have to starve. That is why the death-rate in Scotland is steadily going up.
My experience leads me to believe that food is more important than anything else, even than housing. These people and their children have to starve to enable them to pay the extra cost of
their houses. It is not simply rent for which they have to pay, but the extra amenities. They have to have more than one fire, and they are not able to do so, and therefore they are starving and cold. Formerly, although they had only one apartment, it was warm. They were all huddled together. They only had the one bed arrangement. When we put them into new houses, they have to get furniture. They have to get bed and bedding. All that means money. The folk starve themselves in order to put up an appearance that they are getting on. In the struggle that some of these poor people make the Government ought to encourage them, instead of crushing them, as they are being crushed at the moment.
The population in Scotland, for the first time in my experience, is going down. That never happened until this Government came in. Everybody is paying tribute to the wonderful things done by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Under-Secretary, but, if those Ministers are to get credit for the good things, they must take responsibility for the condition of health of Scottish folk. Scotland's population is dwindling. Child-bearing is the most dangerous occupation in Scotland, and this Government, with all their pretence of being such a fine lot of men, instead of making provision and trying to make amends for that condition of things, cut down the health services, so that there is less provision being made to save the mothers of Scotland from death. My point is that the Scottish Office is far too soft. The Secretaries of State for Scotland have always been far too soft in holding out for their own in the Cabinet. There never was a clearer case than in regard to the last Housing Bill, when an instruction came from the Home Office in England as to what was to take place in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman may shake his head if he likes, but a number of things have happened since I came to this House that lead me to the conclusion that the Secretary of State for Scotland is dominated by his colleagues in the Cabinet, and he has no right to be. He ought to be able to stand on his dignity as Secretary of State for Scotland, just as any other Cabinet Minister, and I hope that he will do so.
Cutting down the social services makes things much worse in regard to child-
bearing and infant mortality. The Secretary of State has told us that the death rate of children in Scotland is greater than the death rate in England. Am I to believe that the English mothers are better than the Scottish mothers? I am not going to believe anything of the kind. There are no finer mothers in the world than the mothers of the Scots, and we have to look for the reason elsewhere for the increased mortality. The Government turn to some medical authority, who says that the variability in our climate is re sponsible for the higher death rate in Scotland. You can get a medical 'authority—it is the same in every profession—to say anything to suit the occasion, and I would ask the Scottish Office not to pay any attention to such folk. My forefathers agitated to usher in a new era in Glasgow when we were afflicted with small-pox and typhoid fever, which carried off hundreds of people every year. They wanted to bring in a good clean water supply, and it was done, with the result that we have in Glasgow the finest water supply in the world coming from Loch Katrine. Previously, private enterprise had supplied Glasgow with water, and private enterprise came to London and fought against the Glasgow Corporation getting power to bring water into Glasgow. They wanted to retain control, and they got a medical authority to say that to bring water 34 or 38 miles from Loch Katrine, in lead pipes—

Mr. JAMIESON: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member in order in discussing on this Vote the history of the Loch Katrine water supply? It is simply a waste of time, when other people want to speak.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: They got a medical authority to state that the lead pipe through which the water would be brought would poison the water and destroy the people, and that instead of being good for the folk it would be bad for them. That is a fact, and it ill becomes the hon. Member for Mary hill (Mr. Jamieson), on an occasion like this and on the point that I am making, to object, but there is a day of reckoning and he who lives longest will see the most. Therefore, we can place no reliance on the statement of a medical authority that the variability of our climate is responsible for the death rate. During the 'War the men in the trenches,
who had never lived an outdoor life, were never in better health, under the most variable climatic conditions, without a roof above their heads, because they were well fed. The reason why there is this increased death rate amongst the children and the men and women in Scotland and the reason why the birth rate is going down and the standard of life is being lowered, is because of the lack of money to buy the necessaries of life. We have parts of Scotland that are practically depopulated. A hundred years ago the Isle of Islay had a population of 30,000 and was capable of maintaining that population, but the Isle of Islay to-day has a population of only 5,000.
I should like to know, on the question of rents, whether the Secretary of State is aware that under most of the municipal housing schemes in Scotland built under 1919 and 1924 Acts are complaining of the excessive rents, which they are unable to pay because of unemployment and low wages. Has he received a communication from the municipal tenants requesting an all-round reduction of 25 per cent. in the rents of ordinary houses, and will he consider the advisability of setting up a committee to report on the question of a reduction of rents to bring them into conformity with the income of the tenants? My last point is in regard to milk. The right hon. Member for Caithness referred to the wonderful body-building properties of milk. I am with him there. I am all for drinking more milk and giving the children as much milk as we possibly can. I find in the report that investigation into the tuberculous infections of milk showed that the percentage in 1931 was only 0.45. There is something wrong here, because the veterinary surgeon for the City of Glasgow only six weeks ago stated, and I raised the matter in the House at the time, that of the herds of cattle which supply the West of Scotland, particularly Glasgow, 14.5 are tubercular, and that they are a menace to the welfare of the people, particularly of the children, of Glasgow. There is some discrepancy and I would like it to be corrected. It is a terrible state of affairs that you should have 14.5 per cent. of the cows that supply Glasgow with milk troubled with tuberculosis.
During last year there passed through the Rent Court in Glasgow 35,000 cases, and I have been asked to raise this question with the Secretary of State and to see if it would not be possible for him to appoint a poor man's lawyer to defend these people. The work has been done voluntarily, practically speaking, up to now, but there are so many cases that it is impossible to deal with them in that way. In 1920 I went into the Land Court and got from the Sheriff the right—what was called a locus standi, I, who was not a lawyer—to defend the people who were brought before the Sheriff. It was all right at that time, but it has got worse and worse, so that last year 35,000 people passed through the court. Is it too much to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland at any rate to make inquiries into this serious state of affairs? These poor people have no knowledge of the law; immediately they are summoned they become terrified; they do not know what is in front of them; they fear that everything will be of the worst. The right hon. Gentleman would be doing a good deed if he would agree to my request on behalf of these poor folk, and grant them a poor man's lawyer. It is true there is a poor man's lawyer there now, but he has too much to do. This would need a man set apart for the job. If the right hon. Gentleman would do that, he would do something to justify some of the praise which has been showered upon him from all sides of the Committee.

8.2 p.m.

Captain McEWEN: I join in congratulating the Under-Secretary of State on his masterly array of the facts in introducing this Estimate. I think I can assure him, too, of the active sympathy of the Committee in the additional responsibility which the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) has just sought to lay on his already weighted shoulders, namely, that of keeping up in his own person the falling birth-rate of Scotland. I only wish to make one point, and that is in connection with the capping of the certified milk bottle. This is 3 question which I have addressed on more than one occasion both to the Scottish Office and to the Ministry of Health, with singularly little result. There is a regulation which occurs in the Milk (Special Designation) Order of 1923 which requires that on the caps of all
certified milk bottles there should be the name of the producer, the address of the producer and the date of production. That would appear, at first sight, to be perfectly reasonable. What is known as the milking commonly takes place twice a day, in the morning and in the afternoon or early evening. So far as the morning's milk is concerned, there is no difficulty. It can be sent in to the nearest centre, Glasgow or Edinburgh, from any part of the country and sold quite freely. When it comes to the milk from the evening milking it is not possible, except in the case of certain parts of the country very favourably placed, to get the milk to these centres or to sell it.
I understand that certified milk in a bottle remains good for upwards of seven days, but the ordinary purchasers of certified milk will never believe that, and, if the bottle has "Monday" printed on the cap and if it is being sold on Tuesday, it is not bought at all, although, in fact, it is equally good as milk. The result is that the unfortunate producers are thrown upon the horns of a particularly unpleasant dilemma: either they have to lose their market or to deceive the public. It should surely be easy for the Department concerned to find some method of dating these bottles which would be more satisfactory than that at present in use. I understand that legislation would not be required. All that would be needed would be an order from the Department. In view of those facts, I ask the Under-Secretary of State to be kind enough to take up the matter.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) receives always the admiration of all patriotic Scots for the vigorous and vociferous case which he makes for his native land. The trouble with him, and especially with the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) is that they are both inclined to think that Glasgow is the centre and the whole of Scotland. Fortunately for our country that is far from being the case. There are other areas equally famous in history, equally important, and at this time equally needy and deserving of attention. The hon. Member opposite, who took such an inordinate amount of time, launched forth on an indignant attack upon an official
in Edinburgh. It is not my place or my intention to deal with that, except to say that, if the hon. Member chooses to lead a column of unfortunate people from one area to another and so disorganise the whole civic organisation of that other area, he must face the consequences.

Mr. McGOVERN: I faced them.

Mr. STEWART: He cannot expect the new area suddenly to cope with some thousands of people seeking relief. Rather than the vote of censure being on the Secretary of State for Scotland, it should be on the hon. Member for having misled and misdirected these unfortunate people and having brought misery, discomfort and disappointment to their homes.
I have risen to associate myself with those who have offered congratulations to the Scottish Secretary, particularly on the results of his housing legislation. I am delighted to find that last year we obtained a record number of new houses and that the number of houses under construction to-day is higher than before. It is a fine record and as the Secretary of State for Scotland journeys north to-night to the Royal Show to judge, or at any rate to observe, the health of another set of creatures, he can take legitimate pride in the achievement of his first year of office. I am afraid he will not be received with open arms by the owners of the livestock in Dundee. No Scottish Secretary of whatever party colour, or of whatever Government it may please heaven to appoint, could expect that from these particular gentlemen; but the right hon. Gentleman can find consolation in the thought that he has done something for the farm workers of the country and for their colleagues the workers in the town. I am satisfied that the efforts of the Department in the urban areas are likely to produce an effect and to achieve success in this great problem of housing, and ultimately to remove slums and relieve overcrowding; but I have considerable misgivings with regard to the progress of housing in country districts. I am rather sorry that the Under-Secretary of State devoted such a small part of his speech to that problem, although I understand the magnitude of the task with which he was faced this afternoon.
My criticism with regard to rural housing is not against the Government, but against those who administer the schemes in the areas. During the last week we have had discussions on the means test and on the Anomalies Act. Hon. Members opposite, in the course of their own anomalising, have sought to defend the principle of the Anomalies Act but to attack the Government for its administration. In the case of rural housing, there are at the moment adequate and admirable Measures on the Statute Book, and I am satisfied that the Government Departments are acting with diligence and enthusiasm in the administration of those Measures. But I am not satisfied that the local authorities in the counties are playing their part. It is not that the county councils or the town councils are hostile, or even unsympathetic. It is so often that they are apathetic. I am not sure sometimes that this Committee is not apathetic in regard to the particular problem of rural housing. These local authorities are prepared to listen to reports brought before them, and ready to act on them. The medical officer or sanitary inspector produces a report and lays it on the table; it is a report giving evidence of terrible conditions in villages—overcrowding, damp walls, and leaking roofs. The council, with this report before them, sit up, blink their eyes, and say: "This is terrible; we did not realise that this was so; let Us do something about it." They do something—I give them credit for it— and they proceed to work the various Measures.
My complaint is that they do not make it a consistent part of their policy to search out these black spots constantly, from one week to another. These black spots have often been there for years, sometimes for generations. The local authorities do not probe sufficiently, they do not inquire: there is not the drive, the rebellious determination to rid their districts of these sores that discredit them. I am not blaming the officials in these areas; they are, in many cases, over-worked. In the Report of the Department of Health it is recommended to the county councils that they ought to employ full-time veterinary surgeons. Why? Because, according to the report, they
would get better service. Somebody—I think it was the Under-Secretary of State —took credit to-day for these veterinary surgeons making three visits to farms. He said that was excellent. Three visits to inspect the cow byre, but not one visit even to inspect the house occupied by human beings. There are throughout the whole of Scotland terrible houses that have never been visited by any sanitary inspector or medical officer. In the present report it is stated that "Continuous pressure has been exercised on local authorities to expedite the submission of housing proposals." As a result of that pressure, tenders were approved for the erection of some 18,000 houses in 1932, compared with 12,000 in 1931. As a result of the pressure of the Department, these approved houses have increased by 50 per cent. I congratulate the Department on that success.

Mr. SKELTON: I did not want to convey the impression that no local authorities acted without pressure.

Mr. STEWART: That is not my suggestion. It might be that some pressure was found necessary and, as a result, there was a marked and considerable increase in the number of houses built. That is excellent, but my complaint is that sufficient pressure is not brought to bear on backward authorities. There is power now to exercise that pressure. The report contains examples of the powers in case of default that are being exercised by the Department, and I am satisfied that those powers, under the Act of 1930, should be exercised a great deal more. Wherever a local authority is financially able to fulfil its obligations and does not do so, it should be the duty of the Government, supported by Members of all parties in the House, to see that the default powers are exercised so that houses may be obtained for the people.
I have been thinking mainly of new houses—of cases where the old houses are so bad that they should be demolished and new houses built in their place; but it is only in an extreme case that an entirely new cottage is needed. The inquiry conducted by the Department in Berwickshire showed that only 20 of the 472 cottages examined, or only about 4 per cent., were beyond repair and needed abolition. The remainder were made up of those which
had been reconditioned and about 56 per cent. which could be improved and made habitable by the application of the particular measure designed for the purpose. I believe that that proportion of 50 per cent. or so applies to the whole country. I believe that, if any county is taken, it will be found that about 50 per cent. of the cottages in the villages could be improved by the application of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, an admirable Measure which was supported by hon. Members opposite. I remember Mr. Johnston, when he was Lord Privy Seal, defending it and pointing out how he had doubled, trebled, and even quadrupled the number of houses built under it. The objects of the Act are sometimes forgotten. It was designed to promote the provision of housing accommodation or the improvement of houses for rural workers, and the improvements that could be carried out under it included structural alterations and repairs, and the provision of water, drainage and sanitary arrangements.
It is a matter of regret to me, and to most of us in the rural districts, that the number of houses so improved under the Act declined last year. I listened with great care and interest, and a good deal of gladness, to the remarks of my hon. Friend, but his own report shows that, while in 1931 4,000 applications were received from local authorities for assistance under the Act, last year there were only 3,000 such applications, showing a drop of 25 per cent. What is the excuse for that? The report says that the call for economy was doubtless in some measure responsible for the diminished activity of local authorities. I am no spendthrift. Nobody brought up in a typical Scottish home, and understanding the meaning of thrift and care, could be accused of being a spendthrift. I am in favour of sound economy which prevents waste, but I am utterly opposed to economy which creates waste, and I have a feeling that neglect of the opportunities that are there for remedying and improving these rural cottages must ultimately result in adding to the cost to the community in sickness and relief of one kind or another.
For the first time this report strikes, in its health section, a note of danger for the future. For the first time in a
good many years, as the Under-Secretary has shown, infantile and maternity death rates are up. Infectious diseases increased last year. There was an increase in rickets—essentially a child's complaint resulting from bad conditions. There was a decrease in population. I am not saying that housing is the only factor causing these things, but I am going to say that part of the blame for that fall in the general health of the Scottish community lies at the door of those responsible for the housing of the people. The Housing (Rural Workers) Act says that local authorities may, and shall if they are required to do so, submit schemes for reconditioning. The Under-Secretary paid an eloquent compliment and tribute to the local authorities in urban areas, and I have no doubt that they deserve it. Thanks, if you like, to the "ginger" supplied by hon. Members opposite and on these benches, the local authorities in Glasgow and Edinburgh have made magnificent efforts. But I am not sure that that tribute can be offered with the same freedom to every authority in the rural districts. There are many authorities upon whom I would beg the Secretary of State and his Under-Secretary to exercise further pressure, in order that they may perform their duties to their generation, and so maintain the proud place of our country in these Islands.

8.22 p.m.

Captain ARCHIBALD RAMSAY: I think it would be unfair, in the interests of certain of our countrymen for whom I propose to speak for a few minutes, if a matter which they consider to be of the greatest importance were allowed to go by default because it may not be generally supposed to be a national matter. There are something like 20,000 men in Scotland who, as the Under-Secretary knows, fell out of covenanted National Health Insurance benefit in December last. The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary have, I know, both been at some pains to consider this matter, but I would venture to suggest that those of us who are concerned about it, and there are a good many of us, are not entirely satisfied with the present state of affairs.
The situation, briefly, is that all the parties concerned, that is to say, the patients—these 20,000 men—the doctors
who are responsible for the health and welfare of these men, and also the insurance committees who are responsible for the financial and other arrangements of health insurance, are all of the same opinion, namely, that, if it can possibly be arranged administratively, it would be in the interests of all concerned that these 20,000 patients should not be transferred to the care of new doctors, with the loss of time and money that must necessarily be involved, and the general dislocation that the patient must endure when he changes his medical officer. I suggest that, by some adjustment of either local or national machinery, or perhaps both, this difficulty can be got over. We have been told that it is a matter of transferring certain charges from the nation to the local authority, or vice versa. I would suggest that this is not really an insuperable difficulty.
If it be decided that the nation cannot continue to bear this charge, surely some system can be devised by which a surcharge can be made against the local authority. If it is said that extra expense would be entailed, I think further proof of that statement should be asked for. The fact that their national covenant expires does not make their medical treatment any more or less expensive. If they are not well, they have to be cared for. If it is decided that the nation can no longer bear this fixed charge, well and good. Let it be able to surcharge the public assistance committees. If they and the doctors come to the Government and ask that this machinery should be kept intact, I hope the hon. Gentleman will see whether this flaw in our national health scheme cannot be met and put on a satisfactory and lasting basis by some further adjustment, without further legislation if possible.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. R. W. SMITH: I raised the question of maternal mortality a year ago. The Minister has said that he was not entirely satisfied with the figures, but the Department of Health gives a very clear indication of where the trouble comes. Their own report states that:
Puerperal sepsis is the most important individual cause of maternal mortality.
There is an increase in the rate this year from 5.9 to 6.4, and when you look for the cause, which is in the next column,
you find that it comes under puerperal sepsis. The rise of 5 per cent. is due principally to the one cause. There is a question whether it is not more common to have this infectious truble in institutional treatment than in home treatment. There is a considerable increase in the number of births in institutions as compared with preceding years. The Minister of Health must have a policy with regard to this question. There is to be a scientific inquiry on the point and a Committee is being set up. The present policy of the Department is to encourage institutional treatment of maternity cases rather than home treatment, and that is borne out by the fact that the amount provided for the training of midwives is reduced by £500. Would it not he wise at present to encourage home treatment more than institutional treatment until we are quite certain what we are doing?
With regard to infant mortality, I hope the Government will do all it can, by means of child welfare centres, to impress the necessity for the proper feeding of mothers and children, because I think we are suffering from the fact that proper food is not being given to either. I am told by those who do social work that in many cases they live on tinned instead of fresh food. The report says:
There is some evidence of an increased incidence of rickets among children below school age.
I have taken the trouble to look up the primary cause of rickets and find that it is bad feeding and bad air. We have improved housing conditions and yet infant mortality has not gone down. Can we not do something with regard to feeding? I would ask the Department to do all in its power to press upon maternity and child welfare centres the importance of giving their children fresh food. That will indirectly help agriculture as well. I should like this Committee that is being set up to inquire carefully and find out the class of feeding that is taking place, whether they are living on fresh or tinned food. I should also like to know whether there is a veterinary surgeon on the Committee. The Under-Secretary referred to the importance of improving the milk supply, and I think it would be advisable to have someone well up on veterinary surgery on the Committee.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON: If there are any matters which I do not reply to fully,
I shall take the course of action I took last year of going through the speeches carefully and replying by letter to any points which I have not adequately dealt with. I agree with much that the last speaker has said on the question of maternal mortality. The figures that he gave with regard to puerperal sepsis are undoubted, but I think I made it clear in my opening remarks that a most extensive form of examination has been undertaken for six months, not cases where death follows but every case of child birth, and, when the evidence of that examination is before the experts, it may be possible to trace the causes of puerperal sepsis and to tell whether it is more frequent in institutions or in home childbirths and all that kind of question. With regard to infant mortality, which I raised very specially because it is an anxious question, the medical profession and our medical advisers, not only this year but over a period of years, are not definite and conclusive as to its causes, but it seems to be the case that variability of type is a very strong factor and my own judgment, from the information before us, is that the hard times through which we are passing are a very important factor. If we had not been able to counteract these hard times to some degree, one would have expected the infant mortality figures in the last five years to be strikingly worse than they were in some period not far back when it is agreed that things were fairly prosperous. It is a difficult question and one with which, as long as I have anything to do with this office, I propose to deal very carefully, but I do not think that it is one about which anyone can speak categorically because medical officers themselves are not prepared to speak categorically. I hope that next year we may not see a rise such as we have seen this year.
I will next deal with the questions which have been raised on the subject of public assistance. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham), for whose kind words regarding myself I am sincerely grateful, as he knows, raised the question of the distressed areas and produced figures which are never amiss, because they are so striking. As I said before, I cannot yet see how the sum which Scotland will get of the total amount which the Minister of Health announced this afternoon will be allocated
as between districts. It would be premature to attempt to do so, but I think that I may say without raising any false hopes that it will be to the heavily hit districts that the bulk of the money will go. The hon. Member will recollect the extent of the increased sum which falls to Scotland under the new grant period. The hon. Member is familiar with the distribution of it and knows that the great bulk of it will go to, the heavily distressed areas. There is also the fact that, in the redistribution for the second grant period under the formula, the heavy incidence of unemployment, quite apart from new money, will produce an even greater weighting in favour of these particular districts. These are some of the observations which come to my mind.
With regard to housing, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) asked about the rural districts and how they were to be affected in the case of the 8,600 uninhabitable houses. These houses are dealt with by slum clearance. As the Committee know, the slum clearance subsidy is very generous and favourable, and in many cases the rate of contribution can be well below the £4 10s. which is adumbrated in the Act of Parliament. I find that there are various instances of small semi-rural places where it has been possible to deal with slum houses at a rate of contribution very much below £4 10s., and that, therefore, shows how much this generous contribution will, in fact, help some of the less rural authorities. In Carnoustie, which, I agree, is not particularly small or rural but still is not absolutely out of the picture, the rate of contribution is down to 6s. 5d. At Culross, which is small, and rural to a very high degree, the rate of contribution is only 4s. 2d. At Forfar, which, of course, is a larger town but still rather rural in character, the rate is only 8s. 5d. At Forres the rate of contribution is £l 2s. 6d. In some of these more northern places, and in towns which are not very large but which are on their own from the point of view of housing, and where a 1d. rate produces a very small amount, so generous is the subsidy that rates of contribution far below £4 10s. have been allowed. I think that that answers to a large extent that particular question.
It has been said, why not have a five-year programme? The answer is that we have always had among local authorities
in Scotland a very great increase in slum clearance. I am satisfied that they are going ahead with it, but I am not going to make rash prophecies of what may be the total number of houses produced if local authorities concentrate on slum clearance and rely on private enterprise to do the rest. It is too early to make a prophecy of that sort. I am satisfied that the local authorities will not be careless on the subject of slum clearance, and that the Department of Health is given full powers of pressure and persuasion under the 1930 Act. As far as the action of private enterprise is concerned, whether under Sction 3 of the new Act or otherwise, it is too soon to draw a general deduction in view of the short time since the Act was passed. That is the only wise and sane attitude to take in the new situation, and I am not satisfied that a better programme in Scotland in a five-years plan would be desirable. I have not been able to recommend it to my right hon. Friend, nor does he feel that it would be a sound course of action. I think that I have covered to a large extent the questions which have been raised. An hon. Member asked me as to the distribution of the £3 subsidy houses. I could give him the information, but I am not sure that it would be worth while extending the time of the Committee on the point. I have the figures before me, but they would take some time to read, and I will answer him by letter.

Mr. D. GRAHAM: One of the points which the hon. Gentleman has not answered is that with regard to medical benefits.

Mr. SKELTON: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. It is an important point and the position has been clearly and fully stated by the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members. It is a question of whether by administrative means— legislative means could not be discussed in this Debate—the intended withdrawal of medical benefits, other than cash benefits, to those who have been unemployed for a certain period can be avoided. I cannot say more on that point than this, that while it may be possible by some administrative manipulation to do it— and I am not confident that it is possible —to take such action would require the consideration of the Cabinet, because it
would represent an alteration of policy from the 1932 Act. It is not for me in this Debate to make statements as to alterations in Cabinet policy, but I am sure that what has been said will be added to the representations which we have received, and the fact that the hon. Member has drawn attention to it in this Debate will mean that the question will come before those who are responsible for the policy of this country.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The Under-Secretary has not answered my point as to giving the Clydebank Town Council power to build houses, and also see that the rents are such as poor folk are able to pay.

Mr. SKELTON: The hon. Member will excuse me from going into the question of the decision taken by the right hon. and gallant Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) and myself when the question was raised in 1931, further than to say that it was a difficult question and had to be decided after reviewing the whole situation of the burgh. If I had to review again the question under the same set of facts and circumstances I should, personally, come to the same conclusion. So far as slum clearance in Clydebank is concerned we have urged the town council to get on with those houses which are uninhabitable. If it be the case that employment is returned to Clydebank, and there are certain evidences of it, then it is in the hands of the local authority to put forward another scheme and confine it to the lower-paid wage earners who, the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) will agree, are suffering from overcrowding most. I do not say, and I need not say, that a 6s. rent, or a 6s. 6d. rent, is the lowest that is possible, and at some future date I shall be glad to explain to the hon. Member that as far as slum clearance houses are concerned they are often at lower rents than 6s. 6d. I should be glad to see a proposition put forward by the Clydebank Town Council in reference to £3 subsidy houses. It would have the fullest consideration.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: The Under-Secretary has not answered one question I put about the reduction of the grants made for the training of midwives.

Mr. SKELTON: That is a technical subject which I should like to discuss with the right hon. and gallant Member personally and by way of letter rather than
enter upon it now. The same applies to what has been said regarding blind pensions. During recent years an attempt has been made to standardise in Scotland what is regarded as blindness for the purposes of pension. Applicants are examined now in most districts in a clinic, where they get the advantage of the best occulists and specialists, and having the advantage of that preliminary investigation there does not seem much to be gained by a re-investigation by another occulist. I am aware of the point he has raised and have looked into it already. I will look into it again, and I do not think my right hon. and gallant Friend will expect me to say more. I am satisfied that the most scrupulous care is taken to see that no one is deprived of a pension which he should get under the Act, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree that it is important that the same standard of application of the Act should obtain throughout Scotland. It may be that in the course of standardisation cer-

tain pensioners have not really any right to this particular form of pension.

Mr. McGOVERN: The Under-Secretary of State has not answered the point I put to him about the 7s. 6d. National Health Insurance allowance.

Mr. SKELTON: I should have said that in accordance with the arrangement my right hon. Friend is going to deal with questions connected with that topic and, therefore, I omitted to mention it in my observations. I thank all Members who have spoken for the courtesy they have extended to me, and once again express the view that when we discuss Scottish affairs all Scottish Members, however diverse in party, seem to have as their main object the improvement of things in Scotland. That is the feeling which animates all parties.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,682,165, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 29; Noes, 149.

Division No. 237.]
AYES.
[8.54 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, south)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Lunn, William


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McEntee, Valentine L.


Banfield, John William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mliner, Major James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts,, Mansfield)
Hirst, George Henry
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
Jenkins, Sir William
Tinker, John Joseph


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
John, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)



Daggar, George
Kirkwood, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES —


Davlee, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lawson, John James
Mr. Maxton and Mr. McGovern.


Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert



NOES.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Dunglass, Lord
Insklp, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Elmley, Viscount
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgle M.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Jamieson, Douglas


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Janner, Barnett


Aske, Sir Robert William
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Baillie. Sir Adrian W. M.
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Galbralth, James Francis Wallace
Ker, J. Campbell


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Golf, Sir Park
Lleweilln, Major John J.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Brown, Ernest (Lelth)
Gower, Sir Robert
Lyons, Abraham Montagu


Burnett, John George
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick)


Campbell,, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Graves, Marjorie
McConnell, Sir Joseph


Cassels, James Dale
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Guy, J. Cr Morrison
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Ztl'nd)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Hanley, Dennis A.
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander


Conant, R. J. E.
Harbord, Arthur
Maitland, Adam


Cook, Thomas A.
Harris, Sir Percy
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Cowan, D. M.
Hartland, George A.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Craven-Ellis, William
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Crooke, J. Smedley
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur F.
Mason, Col. Glyn K (Croydon, N.)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
Hornby, Frank
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Howard, Tom Forrest
Meller, Sir Richard James


Dawson, Sir Philip
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Dickle, John P.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Milne, Charles


Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)


Doran, Edward
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Duggan, Hubert John
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Moreing, Adrian C.


Morrison, William Shephard
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Nail, Sir Joseph
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Nail-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Selley, Harry R.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


O' Donovan, Dr. William James
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Both well)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Patrick, Colin M.
Sinclair, Ma]. Rt Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Petherick, M.
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Procter, Major Henry Adam
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Klnc'dlne, C.)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Pybus, Percy John
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Windsor-Cilve, Lieut.-Colonel George


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Spens, William Patrick
Wise, Alfred R.


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Withers, Sir John James


Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Strauss, Edward A.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Rathbone, Eleanor
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Ray, Sir William
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.



Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Templtton, William P.
Mr. Womersley and Dr. Morris-


Runge, Norah Cecil
Thompson, Luka
Jones.


Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

Original Question again proposed.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CLASS IV.

PUBLIC EDUCATION, SCOTLAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £4,119,610, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for Public Education in Scotland; and for the Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh; including sundry Grants in Aid."—[Note: £2,600,000 has been voted on account.]

9.0 p.m.

Sir G. COLLINS: The total sum set aside for public education in Scotland for the present year is £7,400,000 which shows a reduction in comparison with last year of £112,000 and that at a time when the sum for the Teachers' Superannuation Fund shows an increase of £101,000. I am sure the sum set aside for the Teachers' Superannuation Fund is appreciated by the teachers, for in these days security of tenure and a pension are very valuable assets. I have mentioned that the total Estimates are reduced by £112,000 and that follows reductions of £431,000 and £382,000 in the last two years—a total of £925,000 during the last three years, which is a considerable economy in the cost of education in Scotland. During that time there has also been a reduction in the size of the administrative staff and the number of inspectors, and it is interesting to observe, when we compare the size of the staff for the administration of education under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State to-day with its size in pre-war times, that the number of officials, in
comparison with pre-war days, has been reduced by 37 and the number of inspectors outside by eight.
I mention these reductions by way of preface to some remarks on the cause of education in Scotland. I have observed in a few papers certain remarks to the effect that the cause of education has deteriorated during the last year or two. I propose to apply four tests to that statement. Other tests may occur to hon. Members, and, if so, I hope they will put them to me and that we may test this statement by the reality and the facts. Turn to the attendance of scholars in Scotland. Last year the attendance showed the highest on record —90.5 per cent.

Mr. BUCHANAN: It has been increasing every year.

Sir G. COLLINS: I agree. Therefore, there has been no deterioration so far as the attendance of scholars in the schools of Scotland is concerned.

Mr. BUCHANAN: They must go to school. There is nowhere else for them to go.

Sir G. COLLINS: They could stay at home. I suggest to the Committee that this high record is a striking testimony to the way in which the children enjoy the schools and to the interest which the teachers have shown in their scholars.

Mr. MAXTON: And to their mothers in sending them to school.

Sir G. COLLINS: Yes, I quite agree. My second test would be this: How does the number of teachers in our schools as compared with the number of scholars
compare with bygone days? If I compare the present year with 1924, I find that the number of teachers has increased from 25,000 to 28,000, an increase of 12 per cent., while the number of scholars in the schools has only increased by 1¾ per cent. Therefore, I suggest to hon. Members that, so far as the teaching power in the schools is concerned, they are better staffed to-day than at any time in our history. Now let me take another test—the buildings in which our children are taught. Since 1926 upwards of £6,500,000 has been spent either by erecting new schools or in improving school accommodation, and even last year, at a time of rigorous economy, upwards of £500,000 was spent or authorised to be spent in the erection or improvement of schools in Scotland. Therefore, I suggest that, so far as the housing conditions of our scholars are concerned, they are at a higher standard to-day than at any time in our history.
My fourth test is this: How do the leaving certificates of the children compare with previous years? I find that 74 per cent. of the children leaving the schools have been successful last year in getting the leaving certificates. That compares with 70 per cent. in the year before and 66 per cent in the year before that; in other words, the percentage of scholars who have been successful in getting the leaving certificate has increased during the three years from 66 per cent. to 74 per cent.

Mr. MAXTON: Is that 74 the percentage of those presented for leaving certificates or of the total scholars leaving the schools?

Sir G. COLLINS: Those who went up to the examinations to secure leaving certificates.

Mr. MAXTON: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what percentage of the total children of 14 years of age leaving school were presented for leaving certificates?

Sir G. COLLINS: I will give the hon. Member that information later. I have not got it in my head at the moment. I have quoted several figures to the Committee from memory, but that is not one that I asked for beforehand. An hon. Member asks: Has the standard been lowered? Let me assure him that there has been no lowering of the standard
whatsoever so as to secure these leaving certificates. Therefore, if you judge the cause of public education in Scotland today and make a comparison on any one of the four tests—and there may be other tests which occur to hon. Members—I submit with confidence, without fear of contradition, that our teachers to-day, who have faced grim necessity in the unpleasant cuts which they accepted 18 months ago, have shown during that intervening period a fine spirit, so that they have maintained the interest of the scholars in their work, and they have shown the same pride and the same ability in their work that have always characterised the teachers of public education in Scotland. I am glad, from my place in the House of Commons, to bear that correct testimony to the teachers in Scotland. I suggest to hon. Members that to talk of deterioration is really a misnomer, and it is inaccurate, judged by any test that you can apply. I believe further that it does the cause of education in Scotland no good, but rather we are proud that we want to improve our present standard.
Since I have had the honour of being responsible for the cause of public education in Scotland I have made more than one reference in public, outside this House, to a remark which was contained in Lord Salvesen's report, in which he urged that there should be close contact between industry and education, and I have discussed this matter fully with my officials and inspectors. I suggest that if the workaday world, the professional world, the business world, are not satisfied with the products of our schools, let them come in and help. Let them get into touch with the advisory committees, the education committees, the school management committees. Let them meet the teachers, in and out of school, so as to understand the teachers' problem, especially in the slum areas.
The education authorities, which are to-day the product of the Local Government Act, 1929, consist not only of those who are keenly interested in the cause of education, but of business and professional men as well. We have a right, I think, to expect that the men who are administering education in Scotland to-day should not only interest themselves in the administration and finance of their committees, but should also get into direct touch with the teachers and
the schools; and although I am making this appeal to the outside world, yet, conversely, let the teachers endeavour to find out what is passing through the minds of those in the everyday world and try to adjust themselves to their needs. Let them more and more interest the parents and the scholars in their work. Let them welcome sympathetic criticisms or suggestions which may come their way. Let them mix with employers and professional men, so as to secure, in the words of Lord Salvesen's Report, close contact between education and trade and industry.
So far, in my remarks, I have been dealing solely with public education in Scotland, but we cannot rest where we are. We wish to improve our standard, our outlook, so as to adapt our system to the needs of the day, and in that connection I have been reading with great interest a report recently issued by the Board of Education on the trade schools on the Continent. This report deals with the manner in which France, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, and Holland prepare their recruits for industry. These countries, as we do, realise that education is a powerful instrument for maintaining the efficiency of industry, and it is interesting to observe that in France it has been found possible to impose a special tax on industry for the purpose of training apprentices. In Holland private initiative has developed a great proportion of the considerable provision of vocational education. Belgium, it appears, is bent upon adding to her heavy industries other forms of industry which demand greater skill on the part of those engaged in them. In Czechoslovakia I find that technical education has been developed with energy and foresight as an essential factor in national prosperity.
What I have read in this report raises in my mind the interesting question of the amount of time to be given to actual workshop practice as compared with the study of principles and the continuance of general education. These continental schools, I find, lean strongly to the former. I know that the point I am bringing before the Committee and the public education authorities in Scotland is no new question. Technical education has been the subject of much thought, and I am well aware, as I have no doubt
other hon. Members are, of the splendid work which has been done and is being done by our technical colleges and in our widespread system of technical continuation classes. Yet there may be something for us to learn from these other countries, and I am accordingly considering whether it would not be advisable for me to send one or two officials to them to learn at first hand what is taking place there, so that, with such information as they can learn, they can come back to us in Scotland and tell us of the most recent development in those countries. We might be able to learn from them and adapt our present system to the future needs of the cause of education.
I do not wish on this my first opportunity of introducing the Education Estimates to let the opportunity pass of saying to the Committee, what I am sure they will also feel with me, that the cause of education in Scotland is served by a body of men who are zealous in their work. I have indeed a fortunate task, because I am supported by my officials who have given me of their best. Ministers come and Ministers go, but it is indeed fortunate that in our Civil Service there is a body of men who give of their judgment and of their best, irrespective of the views of their chiefs. It is because I believe that the cause of education in Scotland has not deteriorated one iota from the high standard which has always characterised it among the educational systems of the world, that I have pleasure in asking the Committee to grant the necessary sum.

9.20 p.m.

Mrs. SHAW: I should like to offer congratulations to the Secretary of State for Scotland on the very lucid statement he has given us as to the condition of education in Scotland. It shows conclusively that the economy which had to be effected last year consequent upon the reduction of the grants has not reflected in any way on the system of education and that no child has suffered thereby. Unfortunately, the largest item of educational expenditure is for teachers' salaries. I am not one of those who desire to cut the salaries of teachers, because I feel that the whole of our educational system depends on good, efficient and well-contented staffs. It is
a matter for some regret that for many-years past there has been annually in the minds of many teachers a great fear as to what was going to happen as regards salaries. I cannot see that that makes for contented teachers. There is a form of salary payment to which I have always been opposed. That is the responsibility payment. It is open to much abuse, and I cannot say that it is in the best interests of education or of the child. Take, for instance, the case of the teacher who is paid for having a department. It might conceivably be that that department has only one teacher, and therefore he is drawing a responsibility payment for supervising himself.
I should like to ask the Secretary of State if he has taken any regard to the Lovat Report. On page 26 the Committee suggest that the responsibility payment should be the subject of departmental investigation. If that investigation has been carried out, I shall be glad if my right hon. Friend will tell the Committee the result of it. If it has not been done, I hope that he will take steps to have it done in the near future. While on the subject of economy in education, there is another suggestion which I should like to make with regard to the staff. I think that infant mistresses should be asked to teach a class. Supervision of the infants' department is a relic of the past when pupil teachers only were employed in the department. We in Scotland pride ourselves upon our system of education and we congratulate ourselves that we are very advanced. We dislike ancient methods, and therefore I say that anything which savours of the past and adds a further burden on the pressing cost of education requires investigation. The report of the Council of Education in Scotland is exhaustive and extremely interesting. I have read it with great care and consideration. i have no intention of going into all the details in that report, but I should like to call the attention of the Committee to one or two items.
The Secretary of State has mentioned the leaving certificate. It is a matter of great satisfaction to find that there is an increased number not only of presentations but of awards of these certificates which would appear to be due to the fact that there is now a greater freedom in the choice of subjects, and more time for
concentration in the final year. The fact that the range of subjects approved for examination for leaving certificates has been extended to embrace such subjects as mechanics, technical drawing and bench work would, at any rate, suggest that at last we are getting away from a system which all along has been too standardised. On a former occasion, when I had the honour to address the House on the subject of education I put forward a claim in regard to practical education and I must reiterate it to-night. I am strengthened in my purpose in doing so by the remarks of the report. I refer to pages 18 and 19 of the report which deals with practical instruction, and there we find this sentence:
These figures are on the whole very satisfactory, though there are still too many pupils near the leaving age who receive no practical instruction merely because they have not qualified for advanced instruction in book subjects.
On referring to the day school certificate (higher) we find that 3,846 certificates were gained, an increase of 255 since last year, but out of that number only 5 per cent. took domestic science. I. cannot agree that these figures are satisfactory when large numbers of our girls are leaving the schools with no means of learning domestic science. We have to remember that many of these girls have no facilities in their homes for learning it, and also that our schools are fully equipped with all the appliances that are necessary for such instruction. I feel that it is time we did something to encourage larger numbers of our young girls leaving school to take up these domestic subjects. I tremble to think what is going to become of the homes in this country if these girls are not encouraged to take up more the practical side of domestic work. If there is to be no improvement, I feel that we may be emulating what I have heard has happened in America. There, it is said, there are only two trades that one can enter without special training; one is matrimony and the other is grocery. I have no estimate of the failure of the former or the success of the latter, but I do not think it takes a very great stretch of imagination to forecast the time when many of the young women of this country may find themselves embarking upon the most complicated of life's experiences without adequate equipment for
carrying it through. To assist in the proper placing of the school leavers, might I suggest that it would be well for the authorities to turn their minds to the consideration of instituting some form of vocation guidance along the lines of the recommendation of the Institute of Industrial Psychology.
I have one other observation to make on the report. There is a paragraph on page 22 which mentions junior instruction centres. I cannot help thinking that if we go along certain lines in the working of these centres that we have established, we may approach to what the Secretary of State has mentioned in regard to trade schools. I, too, have seen some of these schools on the Continent and in this country, and I have been watching very carefully for the past five years the method of development of the junior training centres. I have paid particular attention to one which is doing excellent work very close to my own division, and I have had time to see where the weakness of our junior employment centres comes in. I should say it is in having what we might call dual control between the Ministry of Labour and the education committee. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend if he could not make some arrangements whereby the control of these schools would be entirely left to the education authorities and the placing only left with the Ministry of Labour? I would make the suggestion —and I do it with all respect and humility—that junior Employment Exchanges should be in close proximity to these centres.
It may seem that my remarks would have been more appropriate on the Ministry of Labour Vote, but, having had experience of these centres, I feel the educational side ought to be strengthened, because at the centre of which I am speaking there are 400 pupils attending every day, 200 of whom attend in the morning and 200 in the afternoon. The point I want to make is that out of that 400 pupils, 76 per cent. are voluntary attendants and the other 24 per cent. are claimants of unemployment benefit, which shows that it is not compulsion but the very inducement of the chance of finding a job which is taking this 76 per cent. to that centre. I am pleased to inform the Committee that last year out of a total attendance
of 1,600 pupils, 300 have been placed through the medium of the centre in addition to those who have been placed by the Employment Exchange. I want to suggest with all the emphasis I can that this is one of the most important problems that confront our educational system to-day—not only the educational training, but the proper placing of these young people. If something can be done along these lines to strengthen the hands of the education authorities, we shall find that the young people will gradually drift into a proper position for tackling the big things of the world in which they will find themselves after leaving our schools.

9.33 p.m.

Mr. COWAN: I have listened, as every other hon. Member has listened, with very deep interest and pleasure to the speech which has just been delivered. Personal allusions in this House are difficult and delicate, but I may perhaps be permitted to say that, in my view, not any of the many duties falling to the Secretary of State for Scotland can be more congenial to the present occupant of that office than dealing with education, because he bears a name which has been long, closely and honourably associated with education in Scotland. We have only a limited time at our disposal, and I mean to confine my remarks almost entirely to asking questions. I am not going to follow the hon. Lady who has just spoken in her very interesting remarks in regard to what might be done. After a long experience of school work I am completely in the dark with regard to the education of girls. One question raised by the hon. Lady concerns the remuneration of teachers in Scotland. The Secretary of State is only too well aware that that question bristles with difficulties, but, speaking for many of my constituents, I would take this opportunity of expressing our appreciation of the efforts of the Secretary of State and his advisers to make the sacrifices called for from the profession as equal and as equitable as possible, and at the same time I would express our recognition of the attitude of the great majority of education authorities in Scotland in regard to this matter. It has been a very difficult time for administrators, but I think the good will shown by all sides has helped to establish the contention of the Secretary
of State that there has been no deterioration in the quality of the education.
Another matter which I wish to bring to the Secretary of State's attention concerns school buildings. There has been undoubtedly a slowing down of the work of replacing unsatisfactory buildings. My hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has for many years brought forward the case of the antediluvian school buildings in his own constituency, but I expect they are still there. We have too many of these unsatisfactory buildings, and I would ask whether all this economy over building is necessary at the present time. We have supported the efforts of the Government to achieve economies in many directions, but I think it is a misplaced economy to cease to build satisfactory schools for our children even at this time. Building costs are as low now as they have been for a long time past. I took the liberty of sending to the Secretary of State one or two questions which I propose to put to him. In the report which the hon. Lady quoted there is an incitement or inducement or suggestion that in some cases redundant staff might be cut down. No one is going to express an opinion favourable to extravagance in education, but at the same time I should be loth to support any Departmental policy which militated against a generous recognition of the Departments regulations dealing with staff. If an authority has been somewhat generous in the matter of staff it has acted to a very large extent at its own expense, and I hope there will be no cutting down of staff to the bare Departmental minimum.
The question of teachers raises another very important one to which I ask the Secretary of State to give a very definite answer. For a long time the teachers of Scotland, and many others who are interested in education, have had before them the ideal of a graduate profession. Up to now it has not been possible to attain that ideal, but within the last two years there have been sufficient graduate candidates asking admission to the training colleges to supply all the requirements of the country. That being the case one would have thought that those responsible for the training of teachers, the national executive, would have filled the training colleges with graduates and
not admitted non-graduates, but the very opposite has been the case. They have kept out highly-qualified graduates in order to admit non-graduates who, in some cases, have very, small qualifications. I ask the Secretary of State on what grounds graduates are being refused admission to the training colleges while non-graduates are accepted? The hardship is very great in the case of the graduates, because they have given three years longer to their preparation. The non-graduates are about 18 years old and the graduates about 21. On what grounds are these non-graduates being admitted?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Cheapness.

Mr. COWAN: Last year we admitted somewhere about 160. This year, out of a total of 850, we admitted 120 of these non-graduates. I ask, first, Is it contended that there are certain departments of school life which require an inferior qualification? If so, let us be told what those departments are. I ask, second, Are those non-graduate candidates being admitted simply on the ground of cheapness? If this is the reason, then the education department or whoever are responsible are laying up future trouble for themselves and the country. They are coming in into the teaching profession inferior in status and inferior in payment, but after they have been engaged a few years in teaching they will be saying: "We are doing the same work as these graduates." I ask the Secretary of State to do what he can here and now to put an end to this invidious distinction which is being brought into the teaching profession. Everyone who takes an interest in education must welcome the mission which the Secretary of State has been carrying on in the country. It has been a great pleasure to all of us to see his efforts to encourage business men to take an active part in school administration. From my own experience I say it is a hopeful thing, because I have known business men who, after having been critical of schools for years, become the most generous supporters of the schools when they came in and saw what was being done. We wish all good luck to the Secretary of State's effort.
There is also his further plan of interesting parents in the work of the schools— I do not know whether by parents' days as they have in America and elsewhere; but it was my experience, when I was in
active service, that the fathers were much more bashful on those days than the mothers. It was almost impossible to get a father to come in, and when he did he wore an apologetic air all the time. At the same time we welcome these efforts of the Secretary of State as tending towards making education what it should be, a great communal service in which everyone is interested. I am not going to refer to the raising of the school age. All the arguments are known, and we know the difficulties so long as the present financial situation prevails, but the president of the Educational Institute of Scotland suggested at the annual meeting 10 days ago that perhaps the time was now ripe for a Royal Commission to be appointed to deal with Scottish education. That might have a very wide remit as to work, a remit as to staffing and a remit as to the financial arrangements under which it could best be carried on. That suggestion by the president of the institute has received support from the leading organs of the Press. I ask the Secretary of State, while he may not be able just now to give a definite answer, not to rule out completely the possibility of a commission of that sort doing very valuable work in regard to Scottish education. In conclusion I would say, as one who has been long interested in education, that I have followed with very keen interest the work that has been done by the Secretary of State in his short term of office. If the spirit that prevailed all through his speech becomes general in the educational world, Scottish education may look forward to a brilliant future.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I do not want to continue this Debate upon education unduly, because there is a further Vote to be taken for which I have a certain measure of responsibility and interest, but I cannot allow a Vote upon Scottish Education to pass without offering a word or two on behalf of myself and those who sit upon this bench. I cannot unite in the expressions of satisfaction about the state of Scottish education that were voiced by the Secretary of State and supported by the hon. Lady the Member for Bothwell (Mrs. Shaw) and the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Cowan). In reply to an interruption by my hon.
Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), the Secretary of State for Scotland cited four indications that the Scottish education was all right and was not deteriorating, and had not suffered any deprivations in the last year or two.
The first of those indications, if I remember rightly, was school attendance. It is true that attendance at school in Scotland has reached a higher figure than ever it has previously attained. There are many factors to account for that, and one, in particular, is the widespread distress among the people of Scotland. The harassed, worried, over-driven mother is very anxious to get the children out of the house and into the school, where, at least, they are away, for a certain period of time, from the poverty and depression that hang over the home. In addition to that, one finds, if one reads the report, that there is a tremendous increase in the number of children who are required to obtain free meals, boots and clothes at school. The meals are obtained when the children are in regular attendance at the school. I urn sorry to say that adjudications as to who are to obtain boots and clothing, and who are not, are also, to some extent, influenced by the regularity or non-regularity of the children's attendance at school. The Secretary of State is not entitled to use that figure of high percentage attendance as an indication of a state of high efficiency in Scottish education.
His next figure was that 74 per cent. of children obtained the school-leaving certificate. That, to me, was just as near a wrong use of statistics as ever I have come across. I have in my possession a summary of the report of the Chief Inspector for Scottish Education, Dr. Smith, in which he says:
The obstinate fact remains that less than half of the children in the schools, even of so favoured a district as Edinburgh, complete their primary course successfully in the time allowed.
I am quite sure that hon. Members who are not so closely interested in the details of educational administration got the impression, from the statistics used by the Minister, that out of the children going to Scottish schools and remaining there until the appropriate leaving age of 14, 74 per cent. obtained a certificate of high efficiency. When he presented that figure to the Committee, the Secretary of
State withheld the fact that a very large proportion of those who go to the elementary schools and complete the recognised time, leave without any certificate, and that the 74 per cent. obtaining the leaving certificate was 74 per cent. of the total number presented for the certificate, which was only a fraction of the total number of children leaving school at that time.
The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but, as I stated, he give the figure as evidence of the high state of efficiency of Scottish education at the present time, and naturally the ordinary Member of the Committee, leant back, sighed with satisfaction and said: "That is 74 per cent., and is reasonably good." That conclusion cannot be drawn. Speaking about the conditions of schools and school buildings, the Secretary of State for Scotland gave us a figure of six years. The challenge of my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals was in respect of the last two years during which the National Government's economy policy has been operated. The Minister produced a six-year figure to prove that school buildings were being maintained at a high level of efficiency. He cited the total expenditure for the last six years, included in which were two years during which the Labour Government, in pursuance of its employment policy, were urging educational authorities to build more school buildings. Mr. J. Clark, the Chief Inspector of the Western district, which includes Glasgow, in reporting on the Western district, says:
Glasgow continues to wrestle with its problem of accommodation, not only of new schools to be built to supply the needs of the new housing areas, but the other schools in the city have to be kept in repair and, as far as possible, modernised. It says much for the determination with which the problems of congestion in several schools have been attacked that the conditions are steadily becoming more satisfactory.
I say that the latter part is untrue. There is as big a slum problem in schools as there is in houses. Unfortunately, it is generally the youngsters who have to live in slum houses who have to be educated in slum schools. Everyone who is interested in education knows that in recent years the conceptions of school architecture have been completely revolutionised. The idea of physical fitness calling for a maximum of light, fresh air,
and so on was not operating as an educational conception, 50, 60 and 70 years ago, when a large proportion of the schools in Scotland were built. A huge proportion of the schools of Scotland are efficient structures so far as stone and lime are concerned and may stand for another 100 years, but they are completely out of date and out of keeping with every modern conception of a place where children should be educated. They are dark, dull places, dating back into the Victorian age, and partake more of the factory system and the prison system than of any educational ideas.
A large proportion of the children in the big cities are being taught in big ugly piles of masonry, and when they come out of the school to play their playground is some miserable asphalted or cemented square. In 1930 over £1,000,000 was spent in school developments and that did not meet the immediate demands, let alone producing higher standards of school accommodation, but in 1932 the amount spent in capital expenditure on building schools or modernising old schools did not reach £500,000. Apart from the fact that capital expenditure is not being incurred, in the ordinary recurring expenditure in the way of painting, cleaning and whitewashing, many of the schools in Scotland even the standards imposed by the Factory Acts in factories are not being observed. There are schools that have not had a lick of paint on them for seven years. Instead of the children who go into these places being inspired, brightened and in a mood for mental and physical development, the whole surroundings are dingy, depressing and dull, where they are not positively injurious to health.
I hope the Secretary of State will not pat himself on the back and be persuaded by anyone who presents him with statistics to show that Scottish education is going steadily upwards, because as a matter of fact it is moving downwards in a dangerous way. We have to get out of this mode of patting ourselves and saying: "We in Scotland have always been great educationists. We lead the world in education." All rot; nonsense. There was a period, a short period, when it was true that the young folk of Scotland had opportunities of acquiring knowledge of the three R's that were not available in most parts of the world, and we are
living on that time yet. The men who make speeches and write books were the product of that time and they say: "It must have been a great educational system, because it made us." We are now trying to live on our past reputation. If we examine Scottish results as measured by international standards, whether in the realm of intellect, or in the physical realm, or in the realm of sport, we do not find that Scotsmen are coming out in any one of these walks as super-excellent over all the others.
My right hon. Friend proposes to send two of his officials to Czechoslovakia to find out about the trade schools there. Far be it from me to interfere with the pleasant jaunts of any members of the official staff in any branch of the public service. God knows, they have a hard and difficult life and I do not begrudge them any little brightness. I would as little think of opposing the proposed jaunt as I would of objecting to a sail by necessitous children down the Clyde. I hope the Secretary of State will not think I am approaching this question in any mean or grudging spirit. If he has the money to spend in giving the officials of the Education Department a jaunt to the Continent, just as his officials take a jaunt in the fishery cruiser to the Western Isles, well and good, let us be jolly, but do not let him imagine that they will come back and tell him anything that the teachers of Scotland do not know.
He may be more fortunate than I am, but I think my Labour colleagues will support me in this that in the next week or two when the Scottish holidays begin our time will be occupied and our resources rather strained by entertaining a stream of Scottish teachers who are proceeding to the Continent to learn what they can during their holiday recess. I would also point out that about a fortnight hence there is to be a great world educational conference in Dublin. Educationists from all over the world will assemble there to discuss the development of education throughout the world and to put them into a common pool of knowledge. To that meeting will go a very large representation of Scottish teachers who will utilise every minute of their time to get to know any new ideas that they can in the way of better educational methods.
With regard to industrialists and business men coming in to help Scottish education and to tell us how it is to be done, I hope that I have a broad and catholic outlook on the subject, but I want the Secretary of State to remember that Scottish education has been administered by the publicly-elected boards since 1872 onwards, and during all that time the business interests of Scotland have been very adequately represented on those boards. I am quite sure that any ideas they may have had were laid before the boards with great frequency and ability, and I do not think that business men of Scotland have some educational knowledge up their sleeves which they are going to produce and tell the Secretary of State.
The right hon. Gentleman's mind evidently is running along the line of developing trade schools technical courses. He is thinking in terms of training the children of Scotland to be efficient workers. Good. A lofty and noble ideal. But will he try to be sure that the trades for which he specially trains them and reorganises his educational system will still be there at the time when his educational system has been completed? Had we 10 years ago developed any technical education in the little town in Scotland where I lived, our technical education would have been directed towards teaching the children calico printing, and quite an interesting educational system could have been built up around that. There is the whole theory of colour, of designed textiles; there is all the machinery and chemistry involved in the process. A great educational system could have been built up out of calico printing, but, if our system had been directed towards that, it would have been futile to-day, because there is no calico printing there now. It has gone to another part of the country.
I suggest that in these days our education could not be linked up with purely technical considerations, and be an intelligent and intelligible thing. It should be linked up with cultural considerations, culture of the mind and culture of the body. You have to direct your school education more than ever before to the creation of a sound physique and, on the intellectual side, to the development of sound common sense God knows that it is a scarce commodity in the world to-day, not only in Scotland and not only
among the pupils in the elementary schools. Scotland should direct its educational system, not to making more engineers when you cannot employ the engineers you have got, or more shipbuilders when you cannot employ the shipbuilders you have got, or more miners, joiners or house-builders when you cannot employ those you have got; not towards technical things, which are changing every minute before our eyes; but towards making the people physically fit, mentally equipped with common sense and, above all, full of the joy of life. That is a problem which the schools are not tackling—how to have children leaving school looking forward to life, glad to be alive, interested in life, probing into its unanswered problems, filled with the spirit of adventure. If you can do that, you will do something more than this pettifogging idea that you can turn the children into some particular kind of handicraftsmen to perform some operation which, by the time they have learned it, is being performed by the pressing of a button.
I apologise both for cutting this speech on education short and for taking up the time, for I have not yet said half that I intended to say on education. I wanted to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to one thing, into which I cannot go in detail, although I have documents here on the matter. I have had brought before me in recent weeks copies of inspectors' reports passed upon schools and teachers; just a lot of footling nonsense. There is a slang word which describes these inspectors' reports, which is in common use in ordinary conversation, and that is "bilge." That is quite in order; it is a nautical term. When an inspector writes a report in which be talks about infants of five years of age not being soundly grounded in the fundamentals—I am not quoting textually—he is talking nonsense. [HON. MEMBERS: "Five years?"] I will read this:
Infant one, though at present rather unequal"—
that is a common failing of humanity in the classroom or anywhere else-—
gives promise of leaving the infant division with a very satisfactory grounding in the essential subjects.
Is that not a joke? This is a full-grown man, with distinguished academic career, who writes this about infants of five or six years of age. I would ask the Secre-
tary of State to approach his chief educational official, the Secretary of the Education Department, at whose appointment I in this House expressed very great gratification. I had had experience of him as an inspector of schools when I was an assistant teacher. I regarded him as a man who had broken away from this silly tradition, and I do not want to see him allowing it to grow up again when he is safely seated in his office in Whitehall or Edinburgh. I want him to tell his inspectors that they would be infinitely better employed by removing some of the pressing difficulties which the policy of the present Government is imposing on Scotland, rather than in writing this sort of rubbish.

10.15 p.m.

Sir G. COLLINS: The Committee has listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), as it always does when he speaks, especially on educational matters. I would like to remind him that no words passed my lips which could convey to him or any other hon. Member that I was fully satisfied with the condition of education in Scotland. Far be it from me to be satisfied with any matter within my jurisdiction. The hon. Member said that I was patting myself on the back on account of the success that I have made, but I have only had my office for nine months, and any present success in connection with education in Scotland certainly does not come from me, but from my predecessors who have administered my office in years gone by.
The hon. Member asked me if I could state the number of children who had taken leaving certificates. I have made inquiries since he asked the question, but I am sorry to say that I have not been able to get the figures. I think we were a little at cross purposes on that matter. I was referring to the leaving certificates of pupils 17 or 18 years of age, while I think what the hon. Member had in mind were certificates of the standard of education of children of the age of 14 after they had left the elementary school. I am sorry that on that point I am not able to assist him.
The hon. Member for Bothwell (Mrs. Shaw) asked about one or two points to which I should like to refer. She raised the question of the responsibility payments. This, as my hon. Friend is no
doubt aware, is a part of the salary question, and must be treated as such. We are in a position of some difficulty here. English teachers have been cut by 10 per cent., and we in Scotland have reduced our minimum national scale by 10 per cent.; and this applies to the responsibility payments as to the other parts of the scale. Therefore, any question of altering the separate parts of the scale would require very careful consideration in relation to the general principle that no cut should exceed 10 per cent. The hon. Member asked me one or two other questions, which, perhaps, she will excuse my answering at this late hour, in view of the other question which is shortly to come before the Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Cowan), who was kind enough to send me a list of the questions that he was proposing to ask, was very anxious that I should deal with one point in particular. That was on the question of non-graduate and graduate teachers. Some hon. Members think that we are reducing the number of graduate teachers on the ground of economy, but that is not accurate. I am speaking subject to information supplied to me by those responsible, because, naturally, in my short period of office, I cannot have made myself conversant with these delicate, intricate and complicated questions; but we are not of opinion that all the teachers in our schools in Scotland should be graduates of universities. Our opinion is based, not on economic, but on educational considerations. An ordinary arts degree of the kind now in vogue would, my advisers think, be an inadequate preparation for some of the work that has to be done in our schools unless it were supplemented, not by one year of training, as at present, but by at least two years. What is really desirable is not graduation for all, but longer courses for all, of which the present graduate's course would be one, but only of one kind. There would be other courses of a non-academic nature, and those courses might draw freely on the facilities offered by the universities, not only in the ordinary way of the Faculty of Arts, but in such developments as the Chair of Child Hygiene, the Department of Social Study, and—

10.19 p.m.

Mr. COWAN: It is true that all these alternatives may exist, but at the present time the proposal is to admit non-graduate candidates to the shortened course, which will turn them out inferior in status as regards scholarship, and will entitle them to a salary of £117, as against £162 for the graduates. It is quite possible that in days to come there may be alternatives to graduation, or an equivalent of graduation. That is not the proposal at present. It is the influx of a new class recognisably inferior.

Sir G. COLLINS: Our policy in this matter is being dictated by educational interests. It is that all the teachers in schools should not be graduates but that there should be graduates and non-graduates. The percentage of graduates and non-graduates is, naturally, a matter of some difficulty, and no doubt there is great difference of opinion, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the problem is being examined not purely on grounds of economy but on educational considerations, for we realise that educational interests in the long run, with due regard to economy, must dominate our policy, and that is our policy on the question raised by the hon. Gentleman. As far back as 1885 the inspector of training colleges expressed the view that the time had not come, and probably never would come, when university trained teachers would be required in every school. That is also the opinion of the inspector of training colleges when he reported on the colleges as recently as 1931. The hon. Gentleman raised other points which he will excuse me for not dealing with, though I will follow the excellent example of the Under-Secretary and communicate with him in due course. I am especially grateful to him for his very kind remarks and I hope, with these brief replies to the few points raised, the Committee will now agree to proceed to the next Vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CLASS I.

SCOTTISH OFFICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £52,429, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934,
for the Salaries and Expenses of the Scottish Office; Expenses under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899; a Subsidy for Transport Services to the Western Highlands and Islands; a Grant in lieu of Land Tax; and Contributions towards the Expenses of Probation and of Remand Homes."—[Note: £27,000 has been voted on account.]

10.24 p.m.

Mr. McGOVERN: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.
It was the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) to move this Amendment, but he is likely to be out of the House for five or 10 minutes on personal business and does not want to be accused of discourtesy. Therefore, I give the Secretary of State the opportunity of replying to what is a personal attack on his conduct. I think I have dealt sufficiently with his refusal to meet the deputation of hunger-marchers in Edinburgh recently. We resent the fact that he refused to meet a representative body of men who are down in the very gutter as the effect of the National Government's policy. We regard that as a grave breach from the point of view of his high office. Public testimony was paid to these men by the police officials of Edinburgh for their splendid discipline and orderliness during the time they were in camp. They said that it reflected great credit upon the leaders that 1,000 persons should visit the city without a single act of disorderly conduct taking place during their stay or en route. The police were disagreeing with the treatment by other officials in Edinburgh. The police treated us with the utmost humanity and consideration and did everything in their power to find accommodation for the men when the corporation officials had refused to provide any accommodation. They deplored the fact that men and women should have to sleep in the streets following the failure of the Secretary of State to recognise this body of men. I certainly think that his conduct was ungentlemanly, inhuman, cold and callous in the extreme, and that we might have expected something different from one who holds such a high office in Scotland.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. JOHN WALLACE: I ventured a few days ago to introduce a Scottish deputation to a certain Government Department, and I assured the Minister
that, while the case would, as far as possible, be fully stated, the speeches would be very short, as the deputation had come from Scotland, and the natives of that country are not usually loquacious. I am not sure that I can make the same observation to-day after the experience we have had in this particular Debate. We all know that Scottish business is compressed into a very small area of Parliamentary time, and it would be only courteous on the part of speakers from Scotland, in a Debate of this nature, if they remembered sometimes that there were other Scottish Members who desired to speak as well as themselves. I hope I shall be forgiven for saying that to-day we have had, at a most inordinate length, speeches which might have been compressed into a very much smaller space of time. I always try when I address this House to compress my observations into something like a quarter of an hour, and generally speaking a man, unless he is speaking on some very special subject, can say pretty well all he can or ought to say in something like that period.
I want to make one or two observations about a subject raised to-day by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), who has made two speeches On the subject. I am rather sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) is not here to make an impassioned and eloquent speech, which we always get from him upon any subject on which he cares to address the House of Commons. I do not suggest that the case presented by the hon. Member for Shettleston was inadequate in any respect from his own point of view. He made a virulent attack upon the Secretary of State and from the large stock of adjectives which he possesses he described him as cold, callous, ungentlemanly, and as something even more disrespectful which I forget; but I have no doubt that he meant all that he said. I profoundly disagree with his statement and with the conclusions at which he arrived. I have known my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State much longer than the hon. Member for Shettleston and I do not know anyone in this House who has a more kindly disposition, who is more sympathetic in a practical way towards the unemployed or who would exert himself more to help them in every way at his command. The hon. Member for Shettleston referred to
the hunger marchers. There is one thing about the hon. Member and those associated with him in their references to the unemployed and to those of our fellow citizens who are suffering misfortune and privation at the present time, they claim some extraordinary monopoly in the sympathy which they extend to the unfortunate men and women of this country who, through no fault of their own, are unemployed.
I deny altogether that they are entitled to claim that monopoly. In every part of the House there is most real and heartfelt sympathy for the unemployed, and there is not a single Member who would not do everything possible to alleviate their distress and help their condition. But some of us are far more practical than sentimental. I am a believer in hard facts. If any body of men and women came to me as a Parliamentary representative and asked whether it would be a wise policy on their part to have a hunger march to London or to Edinburgh, I would use every argument possible to dissuade them from that particular enterprise.

Mr. McGOVERN: Would they ask you?

Mr. WALLACE: Do not be too sure. I know far more about this hunger march than the hon. Member imagines. Some of them came from my own constituency. I do not know whether the hon. Member or any of his colleagues instigated this hunger march; they may have done so, and if they did they were very ill-advised, because I do not believe that there is a single Member of the Labour party who would have part or lot in organising a futile expedition of that kind which was bound to end in failure. The hon. Member is an authority on hunger marches. He had a delightful experience of one in Condon not many months ago. I cannot tell how this particular hunger march was organised or engineered, but he knows that when he attempted to intervene in the hunger march on London he got very short shrift.

Mr. McGOVERN: I believe it was right.

Mr. WALLACE: That makes his position more hopeless than ever. What did he tell the House to-day? He told the House that these decent folk, deluded into this enterprise, I do not say by him, arrived at Edin-
burgh in a condition of destitution. The hon. Gentleman complained about matters with which I am not qualified to deal. I have not the technical knowledge of the administration of the Department of Health or the Town Council of Edinburgh to enable me to say whether he is right or wrong. But I can imagine what he would say if he were a responsible municipal official in Edinburgh and were suddenly called upon to provide for one thousand people suddenly brought into Edinburgh on a hunger march. If one thousand why not ten thousand? I suggest that in that position he would require very good authority before he would agree to a request to make provision for that number of people in such circumstances. I know that the hon. Member took part in this expedition. I have seen an effective and dramatic photograph of him lying somewhere under a blanket or some kind of covering—with his eyes open. He had his photograph taken as one of those associated with the hunger march. I could honour and respect an attitude of that kind if any practical purpose was to be served by it. [An HON. MEMBER: "The next election !"] I am quite prepared for the next election and I shall say the same thing in my own constituency. Perhaps the hon. Member opposite may need help more than I shall need it at the next election. Perhaps his hon. Friends below the Gangway will be able to make a more efficient reply to him on that point than I can make.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Will there be a coalition between you and them?

Mr. WALLACE: I am sure the hon. Member would welcome a coalition between his friends below the Gangway and himself if the conditions suited both parties. But I resent this unworthy and discreditable attack upon my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I know his point of view. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), this afternoon, in a gibe which I am sure he did not intend as such, referred to a speech which the Secretary of State made in Greenock. He suggested that that speech dealt with the past but had no particular reference to the future. I read that speech very carefully and my recollection is that it was full of hope for the future and I have not altogether
a bad memory in matters of that kind. So long as this democratic country has efficient Parliamentary representatives the necessity for these hunger marches does not arise. The Floor of this Souse of Commons is open to every elected representative and I am entitled to say that the fullest possible use of it is made by my hon. Friends opposite and I do Dot complain of that. But is there any possibility that any one of these hunger marchers could state to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State a more telling or more convincing case than could be stated here by, say, the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan).
It is idle to suppose that any one of these deluded hunger marchers could have made a greater impression than my hon. Friends opposite are capable of making here. They forget that whatever is done in this country to-day must be within the limits of the country's resources, and however impassioned their speeches railing against the National Government, they ought to know and they do know in their heart of hearts, that however inadequate the provision for the unemployed may be, however difficult may be the incidence of the means test, there is no country in the world where the same provision or anything like the same provision is made for the unfortunate unemployed as we make in this country for our fellow citizens. I am as much against the segregation of the unemployed as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton. In no sense of the word does any party in this House regard them as anything but worthy fellow citizens, who, through no fault of their own, at the present time are out of employment, and to my mind it is utterly unworthy to make the charges which are made against the National Government by my hon. Friends opposite or against my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

10.41 p.m.

Commander COCHRANE: From the two speeches which the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) has made to-day, it is clear that this hunger march was organised, and therefore the responsibility for what happened to the people who took part in it must fall on the organisation and on the leaders. I think it is well to remember what the law says in a rather different connection about
people who do this sort of thing, because, after all, about 1,000 people, by the hon. Member's own showing this evening, were taken to Edinburgh and left there destitute. Consider the case of another man, who, shall I say, engages a number of people for a theatrical performance or anything else, takes them to a provincial town, and abandons them there. He is subject to the law and to imprisonment, and rightly so. There can be no doubt that this march was organised, and the responsibility for what happened to those men and women is entirely on the organisation and on the leaders.
It is also quite clear that the hon. Member for Shettleston and those outside this House acting with him in this matter have not yet learned the first rule of leadership, which is, that the duty of a leader is to his followers, not to himself. The hon. Member, if he had been the type of person I have mentioned, engaging a number of wretched people and abandoning them in some provincial town, would have been liable to prosecution, but first because he does the thing on a grand scale, he comes down here and boasts about it. My sympathy in this case is entirely with those people who were deluded into marching across Scotland for the purpose of going to Edinburgh. If and when the hon. Member for Shettleston can acquire the knowledge of leadership which I suggested to him just now, and afterwards has occasion to come to this House and ask for consideration of some grievance, then I shall be ready to listen to him with very much more sympathy than I find it possible to give to him this evening.

10.44 p.m.

Sir G. COLLINS: The hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) mentioned, in the course of his remarks, that he was making a personal attack on myself, but the issue which he has raised to-night is a matter of public policy, and it is on that ground that I would ask the Committee, after they have heard my explanation, to record their decision in the Division Lobby. On the 12th April last I received a letter from the National Unemployed Workers' Movement, asking me to receive a deputation on certain points, and they enclosed in their letter the questions which they desired to bring before me. I replied to
that letter on the 3rd May. I asked my Secretary to state:
It is observed that the views which you express are similar to those which were submitted on a previous occasion. These views have been duly noted. In the circumstances, it does not appear that any useful purpose would be served by the suggested further interview.
I received a further letter from Mr. McShane, headed "The Scottish Marchers' Council," although the first letter was headed, "National Unemployed Workers' Movement, Scottish Council." In that letter, they again appealed to me to receive a deputation in Edinburgh, and they told me that the (marchers would be arriving at Edinburgh on Sunday, 11th June. I replied to that on the 8th saying that I would not be in Edinburgh and would be unable to receive the proposed deputation. Then I received a letter on the 9th June from the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), in which he said:
I understand that application has been made by the Glasgow Unemployed Organisation to you to receive a deputation in Edinburgh some day during this month. My party is closely associated with the organisation, and I hope you will accede to their request.
That is a letter coming to me from a Member of this House. Let it be noted that I am asked to accede "to their request," that is, a request from the National Unemployed Workers' Council. I fear that in my letter of the 9th June I appeared a little abrupt to the hon. Member, but no studied discourtesy on my part was intended. I simply told him that I bad received his letter regarding the application made to me by Mr. McShane; and that I wrote to him to inform him that I would not be in Edinburgh and would be unable to receive the proposed deputation. This is a request for a deputation from the National Workers' Movement, and naturally in a matter of that sort I examined the precedents to find out what my predecessors in office had done. I find that in 1929, when the Labour Government were in office, the Minister of Labour's private secretary on a similar occasion wrote that:
the Minister is not prepared to receive a deputation from the National Unemployed Workers' Movement as she does not think that any useful purpose would be served thereby.
In 1932 the same policy was followed by the Minister of Labour in the present Government. I therefore followed precedent in the action I took, and I think that, as subsequent events developed, as I will presently show, the Committee will see that I was well justified in the course of action that I took on that occasion. The scene passes from these letters to Edinburgh and I will quote from information supplied to me by the Corporation of Edinburgh. On Sunday, 11th June, on the marchers reaching Edinburgh, their leaders requested the assistant chief constable to provide the marchers with accommodation, and he offered them the Waverley Market. The offer was refused on the ground that the stone floor of the market was too cold a place to lie on. On Monday, 12th June, the marchers made further demands to the Corporation for food and accommodation, and they were informed that any request made by the marchers as a body for assistance could not be entertained, but that it was open to individuals to make application for relief in the usual way to the public assistance officer, who would deal with such applications. No such individual applications were made on the Monday.

Mr. McGOVERN: I would like to say that that is not true. Mr. Douglas told us he could not take applications from marchers as marchers, but that they would require to come from individuals. We realised that, and wanted to see if he was able to deal with them. He offered to deal with them, and we marched the whole of the men up there and told them that they must make individual applications. The assistant chief constable went in and asked Mr. Douglas to receive them and we had a meal outside the door. He said his instructions from the town clerk were not to take the applications. That was Monday night.

Sir G. COLLINS: There is a difference of opinion on these details.

Mr. McGOVERN: I was there.

Sir G. COLLINS: I will continue my narrative, and perhaps it will explain the difference. On the Monday no individual applicants applied for relief. On the Tuesday the marchers renewed their demands for food and accommodation and other facilities, and about 3 o'clock that day two of the leaders—and this is
the interview to which the hon. Member refers—visited the public assistance department and requested that provision be made for housing and feeding the whole body of marchers, numbering several hundreds, although it was admitted that the marchers were in possession of sums. They were informed that applications for assistance could only be accepted from individuals, but an offer was made to pass the marchers' request on to the town clerk. That was done, and later the public assistance officials learned that accommodation had been offered and refused. Arrangements were made, however, with the public assistance department for an increased number of applications, but by 5 o'clock only one had called although the marchers had passed the day within sight of the public assistance office.
I think that shows that the corporation of Edinburgh carried out their duties which have been laid upon them by Parliament, and were ready to offer food and accommodation for these individual persons. I am sure that the hon. Member does not want to do me an injustice. I have done the best I could with such information as I have in the very short time at my disposal, and I have no desire to load the dice against him, but only to state the plain facts, for this is a matter of great public interest, not only in Edinburgh but throughout Scotland as well. I have here certain cuttings from the Press which show that there was a very complete organisation, which does justice to the hon. Member's organising ability, however much we may differ from his judgment, and these show that on Monday and Tuesday there were field kitchens in existence and breakfast and meals were provided by his organisation for these men. I said just now that only one had called. They were also informed that any case of sickness or special urgency would be dealt with if the individuals presented themselves. At a later hour the hon. Member for Shettleston and Mr. McShane made a further representation, when the offer already made was repeated. They chose to regard this as a refusal to deal with applications for public assistance.
Then I come to Wednesday, the 14th. The leaders again approached the corporation, through the assistant chief constable. They—those who were responsible for these hunger marchers—said
that if they were not provided with a meal by 1.30 that day, the marchers would be advised to take matters into their own hands. Fortunately wiser judgments prevailed, and before the evening was out these men had left for their various homes in omnibuses provided by the Corporation of Edinburgh. It is interesting to note that no applicant presented himself at the public assistance committee's office throughout Wednesday, although special arrangements had been made to deal with these applications.

Mr. McGOVERN: Not a word of truth in it.

Sir G. COLLINS: I have stated the facts, which I submit to the Committee are accurate. Let me deal with the much larger issue involved. What is the object of organising the demonstrations and of the expenditure of money which they involve? It is not to inform Ministers of grievances, but simply to create the maximum amount of public inconvenience. The House knows what consideration has been extended to demonstrations of this nature, and they will agree with me that there must be a limit. The points which the deputation proposed to put, on which I am sorry there is not time to answer the hon. Member to-night, although I would willingly do so, ware similar to those raised to-night and raised by other hon. Members on a previous occasion, and I considered, in my duty as Secretary of State for Scotland, that not only would no useful purpose be served but that I would not be carrying out the wishes of this House and of the larger public outside if I either saw the deputation in Edinburgh or went specially to meet them.
Subsequent events in Edinburgh amply confirm me, I think, in the view I took in May last, that it would have been wrong to give encouragement to proceedings so futile, so inconvenient to the public and fraught with elements of danger to the public peace. I have throughout my term of office placed myself at the disposal of every hon. Member, no matter what his views may be, and from time immemorial the Floor of this House has been the proper place for any grievances of rich or poor to be brought before the hon. Members of this House. We have had many illustratrations of that this evening. Every
point mentioned by the deputation in their letter of 11th April was brought before me this afternoon by hon. Members. My hon. Friend said in the course of his speech earlier in the day that no hon. Member of this House could voice the views of these people-Mr. McGOVERN: I say they have not the experience.

Sir G. COLLINS: I say that statement is a grave reflection on the courage and sympathy of hon. Members. We do not lack sympathy with these men. It is well known what this House has done for these men. We are proud of what Great

Original Question again proposed.

It being after Eleven of the Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Britain has done for these men during these times of adversity.

Mr. MAXTON: Then you are easily proud.

Sir G. COLLINS: There is no country, at any period in the history of time, which has done more for the unemployed workers than the people of Great Britain during the last seven years.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £52,329, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 3; Noes, 122.

Division No. 238.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Kirkwood, David
Tinker, John Joseph
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Maxton, James

Mr. Buchanan and Mr. McGovern.




NOES.


Acland-Troyta, Lieut.-Colonal
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Agnsw, Litut.-Com. p. G.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Altchison, Bt. Hon. Craigle M.
Huntor-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Sanderson, Sir A. N. Stewart


Aske, Sir Robert William
Jetton, Major Thomas E.
Sanderson, sir Frank Barnard


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Ker, J. Campbell
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Leckle, J. A.
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Broadbent, Colonel John
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)


Burnett, John George
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. O.
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Colman, N. C. D.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Conant, R. J. E.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Spens, William Patrick


Craven-Ellis. William
McKie, John Hamilton
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gaimb'ro)
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrld Hart


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Tate, Mavls Constance


Dickie, John P.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Tempieton, William P.


Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Thornton, Sir Frederick Charles


Duggan, Hubert John
Milne, Charles
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Dunglase, Lord
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Morrison, William Shephard
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Munro, Patrick
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Nall, Sir Joseph
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Farmoy, Lord
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Ganzonl, Sir John
Pearson, William G.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Goff, Sir Park
Petherick, M
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wise, Alfred R.


Gower, Sir Robert
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Womersley, Walter James


Graves, Marjorle
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banft)


Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Z'tt'nd)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Harbord, Arthur
Ramsden, Sir Eugene



Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Remer, John R,
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Captain Austin Hudson and Mr.


Howard, Tom Forrest
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbrldge)
Blindell.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

RUSSIAN GOODS (IMPORT PROHIBITION).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Captain Margesson.]

11.8 p.m.

Sir BASILPETO: On Tuesday I asked the President of the Board of Trade what quantity of petroleum oils had been imported into this country from Russia since the Royal Proclamation of 19th April last, prohibiting the import of petroleum oils from Russia; and whether such oil had been imported under licence given under Clause 2 of the Russian Goods (Import Prohibition) Act; and, if so, how many licences and for what quantities had been granted since 19th April last. My hon. Friend assured me, in an answer, that no licence had been issued under the Act, and when I asked him from what source the Russian oil products organisations were still selling the full volume that they sold before exactly as if no embargo had been imposed, he replied as follows:
I can only tell my hon. Friend that it must be from a non-Russian source."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th June, 1933, col. 631, Vol. 279.]
I want to read Clause 1 of the Russian Goods (Import Prohibition) Act:
If at any time a question arises whether any goods imported into the United Kingdom were grown, produced or manufactured in the said Union, it shall be lawful for the Commissioners to require the importer to furnish to them in such form as they may prescribe proof in respect of the country in which the goods were grown produced or manufactured, and unless proof is furnished to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that the goods were grown, produced or manufactured elsewhere than in the said Union, the goods shall be deemed to be goods grown, produced or manufactured in the said Union.
Those are the words of the Act, and I should have thought that the Commissioners would have made inquiry into the case and that the hon. Gentleman could have given me a categorical answer from whence this great supply of petrol— petroleum oil, as it is termed in the Act— is still available for carrying out, not only the distribution throughout the country but the fulfilment of the contracts entered into by this company. I would refer the House to what the President of the Board of Trade said on the Second Reading of the Act. What impressed the House
more than any other sentence in that speech was that in which he said:
If you ask me whether this touches them on a sensitive spot I say that it does; and, what is more, it is the only spot we can reach."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th April, 1933: col. 1884, Vol. 276.]
The House was satisfied on that assurance that we have got a watertight arrangement which would really operate in the direction we wished to bring pressure on the Soviet Government in respect of the imprisonment of our fellow-citizens in that country.
As to the source from which this oil comes, it is rather remarkable the day before yesterday Lord Bearstead, speaking at the annual meeting of the Shell Transport and Trading Company said this:
A falling production, in spite of accelerated drilling, and an increasing internal consumption rendered Russia an ever-decreasing competitive factor, except in so far as she figures as a purchaser of American oil in order to implement dwindling supplies.
It therefore appears from this that it is probably America or the surplus from the Texas oil fields which is the source of supply. If so, it would appear that far from the embargo placed upon Russian oil being any effective step in this controversy with the Soviet Government, that the Soviet Government are in the comfortable position of being able to place their orders and so open up markets for Soviet goods with America and supply our market through the Russian organisation. It is obvious, whatever view you take on economic questions, that it is common ground that the country that buys in a market is probably able to sell in the same market, as there is no other way of liquidating trade between the two countries. I suggest that, if we want a supply of Texas oil, it is in the interests of this country, in the interests of our trade and productive industry, and hence of employment in this country, that we should place those orders, and should not do it through the intermediary of a Russian company carrying on its business precisely as before the embargo. I want my hon. and gallant Friend to tell us whether this Russian Oil Products Company is a Russian company. I should like to know where the profits from these sales—retail sales all over the country as well as very big contracts with large users of oil—go. I should like to know what steps the Government propose to
take to render the prohibition an effective instrument of our purpose.
The goods enumerated in the Proclamation of the 19th April, which I am told took effect on the 26th, are few in number, but they are very important. They are butter, wheat, barley, oats, maize, poultry, cotton, petroleum, and wood, sawn and manufactured. The House has been told that that covers 80 per cent. of the Russian exports to this country, but there is still 20 per cent. remaining, and I should like to know whether the Government propose to issue a further Proclamation, as that with regard to oil is ineffective, to deal with the other 20 per cent. I should like to know, further, in view of the fact that the Soviet Russian Government have placed an embargo on our exports to that country, and have taken such steps as they could by way of reprisals in regard to British shipping, whether we are going to permit this Russian company, if it is, as I believe, a Russian company, to continue to do its business in this country precisely as it did before the embargo.
Our prohibition should be made as effective as it possibly can be, and I cannot see why, considering that no English company could have these facilities in Russia for doing trade there, we should allow a Russian company to evade this embargo and do a, to it, very profitable trade with Texas or some other place by importing oil from there and fulfilling its contracts as before. I should like to take this opportunity of reminding the people of this country that every gallon of oil that they purchase from this Russian Oil Products Company is directly tending to diminish British trade, is thereby diminishing opportunities for employment in this country, and is doing definite harm and injury to the unemployed here. I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend to tell us what steps the Government propose to take in the circumstances I have enumerated. It is clear that in respect of one important branch of these imports this Measure has miscarried, and I want to know what they are going to do to fill the gap, and to touch the sensitive spot to which the President of the Board of Trade referred, because I am satisfied that there are steps which they can take. I have suggested two; there may be better ones;
and I ask what the Government are going to do about it.

11.20p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: It is too late to make any speech on the subject now, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) has raised the question of the imports of Russian oil, and thereby the whole question of the embargo on imports from Russia, I wish to ask my hon. Friend in his reply to deal also with the imports of Russian butter. During May of this year 15,862 more cwts. of butter were introduced into this country from Russia than were imported from that country in May of last year before the embargo was imposed. That shows that the embargo is a complete farce. No steps whatever are being taken to enforce it. I hope that in future steps will be taken to enforce it, particularly in regard to butter, because Russian butter is undoubtedly helping to reduce the price of butter in this country.

11.21 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel JOHN COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) raised this question entirely on the matter of oil and therefore I did not come prepared to discuss the whole question of the embargo, but I must say in answer to my hon. and gallant Friend, though I cannot necessarily accept the figures he has given as correct, as I should wish to examine them, that the position in regard to all butter imports allowed to enter the country since the application of the embargo has been determined by whether payment had already been substantially made. I think he will agree that no possible good could be served by leaving the Russians in possession both of the butter and of the money.
As regards oil, my hon. Friend raised first of all a technical point in connection with the operation of the embargo. How is the prohibition of the imports of oil applicable to a company which was formed to distribute Russian oil. Russian Oil Products, Limited, is a British registered company, but as far as I know has no British capital in it. Therefore, he asks, why it is that after the application of the embargo the company is still supplying oil throughout the
country. First of all I would remind him that all companies keep considerable stocks of oil in the country—stocks likely to last in some cases for a month or even more. That factor must not be left out of account in dealing with the operations of the company. I should like to make quite plain the system adopted to make sure that oil of Russian origin is not coming in. It may be suggested that Russian oil is being imported from other countries and passed off as being from those countries. That is not possible. In Section 3 of the Russian Goods Importation Act it is laid down that it shall be lawful for the Commissioners to require the importer to furnish to them proof in respect of the country in which the goods were grown, produced or manufactured, and unless proof is furnished to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that the goods were grown, produced, or manufactured elsewhere than in the same Union the goods shall be deemed to be grown, produced, or manufactured in the said Union. Prohibited goods from non-Russian countries, through which evasion may take place, have to be accompanied by a certificate of origin. The importer who wishes to import prohibited goods from any of those countries has to prove to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that the goods are not of Russian origin, and he can only do so by producing a certificate of origin to which the British Consul in the country of consignment has put his signature. There is no ground for supposing that this safeguard that actual Russian produce is not entering the country is not effective.

Captain RAMSAY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that Russian Oil Products have circularised all the people who take their oil that the supply will go on as usual? How does he explain that?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Yes, Sir, but not Russian oil. I am coming to that point. They do not guarantee to supply Russian oil. The Department believe that this safeguard is effective and that the certificates of origin which accompany each consignment are sufficient, in our opinion, to guarantee that oil is not coming from Soviet sources. After all, British consuls are the responsible officers in the countries concerned, and we have no reason to believe that the certificates
are anything but adequate in that regard. If my hon. Friend has any cases in mind and will put them before me, I shall be only too glad to investigate them. The check which has been instituted is, in our opinion, adequate to ensure that oil of Russian production is not entering this country for purposes of sale. My hon. Friend said that it would be possible for them to purchase oil elsewhere and sell it in this country. Nothing in the Russian Goods (Import Prohibition) Act could prevent such action being taken. That is quite clear. On the other hand, the hon. Member is imagining a good deal when he says that there is a profitable undertaking in procuring oil from another source far from the normal source and bringing it through difficult and devious channels to sell in this country. When he speaks of large profits being made, it is a pure assumption. The check which we have imposed on goods consigned from and produced in Russia entering this country, as long as the embargo is in operation, is completely adequate in regard to oil.
The further point he raises is admittedly not with the Act he has cited. That is the larger question; and one which would require special legislation. In regard to the particular question arising out of the embargo which exists under the Act, in our belief the check is absolutely adequate to ensure that oil of Russian origin is not coming into this country. The sales which are still taking place must be either from stocks Held in this Country or, it may. be, from purchases of oil from other countries.
As regards the whole policy I cannot go into that at this moment, but the House is well aware—and other countries are well aware—that the embargo can be removed on certain conditions.

Major PROCTER: Has it ever occurred to the hon. Member that it may be possible that Russia is buying foreign oil and replacing the amount that it buys by the equivalent amount of Russian oil, and getting round the embargo in that way?

It being half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.